Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580

Names of grand jury witnesses required on indictment; exception; effect of failure to include; procedure to remedy failure

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      132.580 Names of grand jury witnesses required on indictment; exception; effect of failure to include; procedure to remedy failure. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, when an indictment is found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury that returned the indictment, either by testimony in the presence of the grand jury, by affidavit, by means of simultaneous television transmission under ORS 132.320 (5) or by telephone under ORS 132.320 (7), and the names of those whose reports were received by such grand jury pursuant to ORS 132.320 (2) must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is filed. The indorsement shall show whether the witness gave testimony before the grand jury in person, by affidavit, by means of simultaneous television transmission or by telephone or filed a report.

      (2)(a) An indictment may include a pseudonym, initials or other signifier instead of the name of a witness examined before the grand jury if:

      (A) The witness is also a victim of a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005 alleged in the indictment;

      (B) A separate document containing the name of the witness and the corresponding pseudonym, initials or other signifier is filed with the clerk of the court at the same time as the indictment is filed; and

      (C) A copy of the document described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph is provided to the defense attorney or, if the defendant does not have a lawyer, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this subsection, at the time of arraignment on the indictment.

      (b) The defense attorney may orally inform the defendant of the name of the witness contained in the document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection but may not provide a copy of the document to the defendant.

      (c) If a defendant is not represented by a lawyer, the district attorney shall provide a copy of the document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection to the defendant. At the time of providing the document, the court shall enter an order prohibiting the defendant from copying the document or providing the document to any other person.

      (d) The document described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection is confidential with respect to any person who is not a party to the case. At any time during the proceeding the court may, upon a finding of good cause, order that the document is not confidential. Once the final judgment on the case is entered, the document is no longer confidential.

      (3) A witness examined before the grand jury whose name is not indorsed on the indictment shall not be permitted to testify at trial without the consent of the defendant, unless the court finds that:

      (a) The name of the witness was omitted from the indictment by inadvertence;

      (b) The name of the witness was furnished to the defendant by the state at least 10 days before trial; and

      (c) The defendant will not be prejudiced by the omission. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §59; 1995 c.126 §2; 2003 c.645 §8; 2019 c.338 §2]

 

      132.585 [Repealed by 1959 c.426 §1]

 

ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1961–1997 · leading case: State v. Gonzalez
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gonzalez (1993) orctapp · cites it 62× “The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
State Ex Rel. Automotive Emporium, Inc. v. Murchison (1980) or “The name of a certain witness appeared on the face of the indictment as having been a witness examined before the grand jury, ORS 132.580, and as being a co-owner of the vehicle.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leonhardt (1997) or “ORS 132.580(1). Under certain relatively narrow circumstances, personal testimony before the grand jury is not required.”
State v. McDonald (1961) or “510 provides: “The indictment shall be set aside by the court upon the motion of the defendant in either of the following cases: *32 “(2) When the names o£ the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not inserted at the foot of the indictment nr indorsed thereon.”
State v. Flygare (1974) orctapp · cites it 3× “Thus it is clear under ORS 132.580 ① there was no basis for the objection.”
State v. Stout (1988) or ““(2) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall affect the application of ORS 132.580.” Although the predecessors to ORS 132.”
State v. Dike (1988) orctapp ““(2) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall affect the application of ORS 132.580.””
State v. Guse (1964) or “Except in a limited class of cases of which this is not a member, there is no authority in this state for an accused to 'look behind the indictment to evaluate the evidence given the grand jury.”
State v. Mitchell (1972) orctapp “” ORS 132.580 provides: “When an indictment is found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is presented to the court.”
State v. Johnson (1974) orctapp “He relies on ORS 132.580 and 135.510 (2) which require such indorsement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gonzalez (1993) orctapp “The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Leonhardt (1997) or “ORS 132.580(1). Under certain relatively narrow circumstances, personal testimony before the grand jury is not required.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(2) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez (1993) orctapp “The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez (1993) orctapp “The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 132.580(3) — 1 case
State v. Gonzalez (1993) orctapp “The state explained that it had not listed the hospital records or the custodian of the records on the indictment, because it had concluded that ORS 132.580 did not require the state to do so.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.