135.805
Applicability; scope of disclosure.
(1) The provisions of ORS 135.805 to 135.873 are applicable to all criminal
prosecutions in which the charging instrument has been brought in a court of
record.
(2) Except as
otherwise provided in a protective order entered under ORS 135.873, or any
other provision of law prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of specific
material or information, as used in ORS 135.805 to 135.873, “disclose” means to
provide:
(a) A copy of the
material, including but not limited to any document, photograph, report, audio
recording, video recording or electronically stored information;
(b) The
opportunity to inspect and photograph tangible physical evidence; and
(c) The
opportunity to conduct independent testing of tangible physical evidence,
provided that the testing does not destroy the evidence.
(3) Subsection
(2)(a) of this section does not apply to any material that contains depictions
of sexually explicit conduct involving a child, as those terms are defined in
ORS 163.665. [1973 c.836 §213; 1977 c.617 §1; 2021 c.409 §1]
135.810 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
104
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case:
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981).
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 20× “855(1)(c), which provides: "(1) The following material and information shall not be subject to discovery under ORS 135.805 to 135.873: "* * * "(c) Transcripts, recordings, or memoranda of testimony of witnesses before the grand jury, except transcripts or recordings of…”
State v. Koennecke, 545 P.2d 127 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 12× “873 are "not necessarily synonymous." Defendant's motion in this case is based specifically upon Brady, without reference to those statutes.”
State v. Pottle, 677 P.2d 1 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 8× “The application, this order, all supporting documents and testimony in connection herewith shall remain confidential in the custody of the court and these matters shall not be released or information concerning them in any manner disclosed except upon written Order of this Court…”
Stevens v. Bispham, 851 P.2d 556 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “, to have reciprocal discovery of pertinent information, ORS 135.805 et seq., to be tried by a jury, ORS 136.”
State v. Luther, 663 P.2d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 6× “The unabridged videotape or mechanical recording shall be made available to the other party or parties in accordance with ORS 135.805 to 135.990." ORS 135.805 et seq provide for pretrial discovery in criminal cases.”
State v. Wyatt, 15 P.3d 22 (Or. 2000).
“865 provides: “Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.805 to 135.873 [reciprocal discovery] and 135.”
State v. Dyson, 636 P.2d 961 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 3× “865 provides: “Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.805 to 135.873, the court may order the violating party to permit inspection of the material, or grant a continuance, or refuse to permit the witness to testify, or refuse to…”
State v. McDonnell, 837 P.2d 941 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See ORCP 59 E ("The judge shall not instruct with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon"), made applicable to trial of criminal actions by ORS 136.”
State v. Mai, 656 P.2d 315 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 2× “We must look forward to another day when the court will once again treat the Constitution as binding law, not as mere weights to be balanced in the majority's own scale of values.”
State v. Brown, 800 P.2d 259 (Or. 1990).
“873, the court may order the violating party to permit inspection of the material, or grant a continuance, or refuse to permit the witness to testify, or refuse to receive in evidence the material not disclosed, or enter such other order as it considers appropriate.”
State v. Lajoie, 849 P.2d 479 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 3× “865, provided a range of sanctions: "Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.805 to 135.873, the court may order the violating party to permit inspection of the material, or grant a continuance, or refuse to permit the witness to…”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “835(1) are considered in context with the other provisions in ORS 135.805 et seq, it becomes clear that the legislature intended that the word "relevant" in subsections (1) pertain to the testimony of the specific witnesses that the party intends to call, rather than to general…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.805(1) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.805(2) — 7 cases
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.