Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.435 (2026)

Discussion and agreement not admissible

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      135.435 Discussion and agreement not admissible. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, none of the following shall be received in evidence for or against a defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding:

      (a) The fact that the defendant or the counsel of the defendant and the district attorney engaged in plea discussions.

      (b) The fact that the defendant or the attorney of the defendant made a plea agreement with the district attorney.

      (c) Any statement or admission made by the defendant or the attorney of the defendant to the district attorney and as a part of the plea discussion or agreement.

      (2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply if, subsequent to the plea discussions or plea agreement, the defendant enters a plea of guilty or no contest which is not withdrawn. [1973 c.836 §174]

 

      135.440 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: State v. Smith, 872 P.2d 966 (Or. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 872 P.2d 966 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “That statute provides: "(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, none of the following shall be received in evidence for or against a defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding: "(a) The fact that the defendant or the counsel of the…”
State v. Reynolds, 603 P.2d 1223 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The second assigned error is the court’s admission of statements which defendant asserts were made in the context of plea bargaining and were therefore inadmissible under ORS 135.435(l)(c). Assuming defendant was at this point effectively acting as his own counsel, 3 we think…”
State v. Howell, 641 P.2d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “It was about why defendant told the state one thing and then testified to the contrary. Defendant also urges on appeal the argument made in support of his motion for a new trial that the admission into evidence of defendant’s alibi notification violated ORS 135.”
State v. Aldridge, 575 P.2d 675 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “415, questioning (1) whether admission of certain evidence constituted reversible error and (2) whether ORS 135.435(l)(c) precludes the state from inquiring concerning information defendant disclosed in a pretrial conference which was in the nature of plea negotiations.”
Clegg v. Premo (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 2× “123; see also Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 135.435 (1)(c), 135.445; Or.”
State v. Hubbard, 833 P.2d 1313 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “We also observe that ORS 135.435(l)(c) excludes from a criminal defendant’s trial any statement made by a *591 defendant or the defendant’s attorney to the district attorney as part of a plea discussion or agreement.”
Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner (9th Cir. 2012). “The letter was protected from use at trial by the State under the privilege surrounding state- ments made during plea negotiations, see Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.435 (1)(c) (“Any statement or admission made by the defendant or the attorney of the defendant to the district attor- ney…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.435(1) — 1 case
State v. Howell, 641 P.2d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “It was about why defendant told the state one thing and then testified to the contrary. Defendant also urges on appeal the argument made in support of his motion for a new trial that the admission into evidence of defendant’s alibi notification violated ORS 135.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.435(l)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Reynolds, 603 P.2d 1223 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The second assigned error is the court’s admission of statements which defendant asserts were made in the context of plea bargaining and were therefore inadmissible under ORS 135.435(l)(c). Assuming defendant was at this point effectively acting as his own counsel, 3 we think…”
State v. Howell, 641 P.2d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “It was about why defendant told the state one thing and then testified to the contrary. Defendant also urges on appeal the argument made in support of his motion for a new trial that the admission into evidence of defendant’s alibi notification violated ORS 135.”
State v. Aldridge, 575 P.2d 675 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “415, questioning (1) whether admission of certain evidence constituted reversible error and (2) whether ORS 135.435(l)(c) precludes the state from inquiring concerning information defendant disclosed in a pretrial conference which was in the nature of plea negotiations.”
State v. Hubbard, 833 P.2d 1313 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “We also observe that ORS 135.435(l)(c) excludes from a criminal defendant’s trial any statement made by a *591 defendant or the defendant’s attorney to the district attorney as part of a plea discussion or agreement.”
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.