135.815
Disclosure to defendant.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the district
attorney shall disclose to a represented defendant the following material and
information within the possession or control of the district attorney:
(a) The names,
addresses and telephone numbers of persons whom the district attorney intends
to call as witnesses at any stage of the trial, together with their relevant
written or recorded statements or memoranda of any oral statements of such
persons.
(b) Any written
or recorded statements or memoranda of any oral statements made by the
defendant, or made by a codefendant if the trial is to be a joint one.
(c) Any reports
or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case,
including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests,
experiments or comparisons which the district attorney intends to offer in
evidence at the trial.
(d) Any books,
papers, documents, photographs or tangible objects:
(A) Which the
district attorney intends to offer in evidence at the trial; or
(B) Which were
obtained from or belong to the defendant.
(e) If actually
known to the district attorney, any record of prior criminal convictions of
persons whom the district attorney intends to call as witnesses at the trial;
and the district attorney shall make a good faith effort to determine if such
convictions have occurred.
(f) All prior
convictions of the defendant known to the state that would affect the
determination of the defendant’s criminal history for sentencing under rules of
the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
(g) Any material
or information that tends to:
(A) Exculpate the
defendant;
(B) Negate or
mitigate the defendant’s guilt or punishment; or
(C) Impeach a
person the district attorney intends to call as a witness at the trial.
(2)(a) The
disclosure required by subsection (1)(g) of this section:
(A) Shall occur
regardless of whether the material or information is recorded or in writing.
(B) Shall occur
without delay in accordance with ORS 135.845 and prior to the entry of any
guilty plea pursuant to an agreement with the state. If the existence of the
material or information is not known at that time, the disclosure shall be made
upon discovery without regard to whether the represented defendant has entered
or agreed to enter a guilty plea.
(b) Nothing in
subsection (1)(g) of this section:
(A) Expands any
obligation under a statutory provision or the Oregon or United States
Constitution to disclose, or right to disclosure of, personnel or internal
affairs files of law enforcement officers.
(B) Imposes any
obligation on the district attorney to provide material or information beyond
the obligation imposed by the Oregon and United States Constitutions.
(3) Except as
otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, in prosecutions for violation of
ORS 813.010 in which an instrument was used to test a person’s breath, blood or
urine to determine the alcoholic content of the person’s blood the district
attorney shall disclose to a represented defendant at least the following
material and information within the possession or control of the district
attorney:
(a) Any report
prepared by a police officer relating to field tests, interviews, observations
and other information relating to the charged offense;
(b) Any report
relating to the test results;
(c) A copy of the
form provided to the defendant under ORS 813.100 (2)(b); and
(d) Any checklist
prepared by the operator of the instrument for the test.
(4)(a) If a
defendant is not represented by a lawyer, the district attorney shall disclose
to the defendant all of the information described in subsections (1) and (3) of
this section except for the personal identifiers of the victim and any
witnesses.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the district attorney shall
disclose the personal identifiers of the victim and any witnesses if the trial
court orders the disclosure. A trial court shall order the district attorney to
disclose the personal identifiers of the victim and any witnesses if the trial
court finds that:
(A) The defendant
has requested the information; and
(B)(i) The victim
or witness is a business or institution and disclosure of the information would
not represent a risk of harm to the victim or witness; or
(ii) The need for
the information cannot reasonably be met by other means.
(5)(a) Unless
authorized by the trial court to disclose the information, a lawyer
representing a defendant, or a representative of the lawyer, may not disclose
to the defendant personal identifiers of a victim or witness obtained under
subsections (1) and (3) of this section.
(b) The trial
court shall order the lawyer, or representative of the lawyer, to disclose to
the defendant the personal identifiers of a victim or witness if the court
finds that:
(A) The defendant’s
lawyer has requested the district attorney to disclose the information to the
defendant;
(B) The district
attorney has refused to disclose the information to the defendant; and
(C) The need for
the information cannot reasonably be met by other means.
(6) As used in
this section:
(a) “Personal
identifiers” means:
(A) In relation
to a witness, the witness’s address, telephone number, Social Security number
and date of birth and the identifying number of the witness’s depository
account at a financial institution, as defined in ORS 706.008, or credit card
account.
(B) In relation
to a victim, the victim’s address, electronic mail address, telephone number,
Social Security number, date of birth, any user names or other identifying
information associated with the victim’s social media accounts and the
identifying number of the victim’s depository account at a financial
institution, as defined in ORS 706.008, or credit card account.
(b) “Representative
of the lawyer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 40.225.
(c) “Represented
defendant” means a defendant who is represented by a lawyer in a criminal
action.
(d) “Social media”
has the meaning given that term in ORS 659A.330. [1973 c.836 §214; 1989 c.790 §5;
1993 c.469 §2; 1999 c.304 §1; 2005 c.545 §1; 2007 c.581 §1; 2013 c.525 §1; 2017
c.171 §1; 2019 c.475 §11; 2021 c.409 §2]
135.820 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
133
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case:
State v. Divito, 5 P.3d 1103 (Or. 2000).
State v. Divito, 5 P.3d 1103 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 66× “In this criminal case, the court is asked to construe ORS 135.815 (1997), which provides, in part: *1104 "Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 71× “Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815 such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 16× “Their opinion acknowledges the existence of ORS 135.815 and 135.855, which purport to regulate pretrial discovery and prohibit disclosure of grand jury proceedings, but holds them to be inapplicable because they are operable pretrial and "in the case at bar, we are not concerned…”
State v. Morrison, 575 P.2d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 24× “Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815, such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
State v. Koennecke, 545 P.2d 127 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 10× “In the event that scientific tests are made by the state which disclose that the bullet fragments were fired by one of the service revolvers, the state would have an affirmative duty to disclose the results to the defendant, both under Brady and also under ORS 135.815. Until or…”
State v. Johnson, 554 P.2d 624 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 19× “2d 215 (1963), and also violated the statutory duty of disclosure set forth in ORS 135.815 et seq. Because we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the destruction of the original reports violated the state's statutory duty, and affirm its choice of an appropriate…”
State v. York, 632 P.2d 1261 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 12× “Implicit in the rules, as in ORS 135.815, plainly is a policy favorable to access to witnesses and evidence and hostile to improper adversarial interference with such access.”
State v. Pilon, 516 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “Daniels, 261 Or App 519, 528 , 323 P3d 491 , rev den, 355 Or 668 (2014) (“Warren stands for the proposi- tion that, if an entity is required to disclose records to the district attorney or to police, the prosecution has control over the records and, accordingly, must disclose to…”
State v. McKinzie, 63 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 10× “Further, as the dissent recognizes, to be discoverable under ORS 135.815(1)(a), the statement was required only to be relevant to issues at trial.”
State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 11× “He contends that (1) he was statutorily entitled to an in camera review of the DHS records under two discovery statutes, ORS 135.815 and ORS 135.873, because they relate to the victim and no evidentiary privilege protected the records from discovery, and (2) he was…”
State v. Gilmore, 562 P.3d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 5× “Defendant argues that because G had been subject to that interview, “[t]here was likely to be substantial impeachment evidence surrounding what prompted the interview and in counseling records if those were also done at the state’s behest.”
State v. Bray, 383 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Thus, the dispositive question is whether the information was within the district attorney’s “control” as that term is used in ORS 135.815. As we held in State v. Wixom, 275 Or App 824, 831-32 , 366 P3d 353 (2015), “ [t] he legal standard for prosecutorial control of records is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(1) — 45 cases
State v. Divito, 5 P.3d 1103 (Or. 2000).
“In this criminal case, the court is asked to construe ORS 135.815 (1997), which provides, in part: *1104 "Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815 such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
State v. Morrison, 575 P.2d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815, such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“He contends that (1) he was statutorily entitled to an in camera review of the DHS records under two discovery statutes, ORS 135.815 and ORS 135.873, because they relate to the victim and no evidentiary privilege protected the records from discovery, and (2) he was…”
State v. York, 632 P.2d 1261 (Or. 1981).
“Implicit in the rules, as in ORS 135.815, plainly is a policy favorable to access to witnesses and evidence and hostile to improper adversarial interference with such access.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(1)(a) — 8 cases
State v. McKinzie, 63 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Further, as the dissent recognizes, to be discoverable under ORS 135.815(1)(a), the statement was required only to be relevant to issues at trial.”
State v. Pilon, 516 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Daniels, 261 Or App 519, 528 , 323 P3d 491 , rev den, 355 Or 668 (2014) (“Warren stands for the proposi- tion that, if an entity is required to disclose records to the district attorney or to police, the prosecution has control over the records and, accordingly, must disclose to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. McKinzie, 63 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Further, as the dissent recognizes, to be discoverable under ORS 135.815(1)(a), the statement was required only to be relevant to issues at trial.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(1)(d)(A) — 1 case
State v. McKinzie, 63 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“Further, as the dissent recognizes, to be discoverable under ORS 135.815(1)(a), the statement was required only to be relevant to issues at trial.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(1)(g) — 6 cases
State v. Pilon, 516 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Daniels, 261 Or App 519, 528 , 323 P3d 491 , rev den, 355 Or 668 (2014) (“Warren stands for the proposi- tion that, if an entity is required to disclose records to the district attorney or to police, the prosecution has control over the records and, accordingly, must disclose to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(2) — 12 cases
State v. York, 632 P.2d 1261 (Or. 1981).
“Implicit in the rules, as in ORS 135.815, plainly is a policy favorable to access to witnesses and evidence and hostile to improper adversarial interference with such access.”
State v. Pilon, 516 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Daniels, 261 Or App 519, 528 , 323 P3d 491 , rev den, 355 Or 668 (2014) (“Warren stands for the proposi- tion that, if an entity is required to disclose records to the district attorney or to police, the prosecution has control over the records and, accordingly, must disclose to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(2)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Pilon, 516 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Daniels, 261 Or App 519, 528 , 323 P3d 491 , rev den, 355 Or 668 (2014) (“Warren stands for the proposi- tion that, if an entity is required to disclose records to the district attorney or to police, the prosecution has control over the records and, accordingly, must disclose to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(2)(a)(B) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(3) — 4 cases
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815 such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(4) — 8 cases
State v. Koennecke, 545 P.2d 127 (Or. 1976).
“In the event that scientific tests are made by the state which disclose that the bullet fragments were fired by one of the service revolvers, the state would have an affirmative duty to disclose the results to the defendant, both under Brady and also under ORS 135.815. Until or…”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815 such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(4)(a) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(4)(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(4)(b)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(b) — 1 case
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Unlike other things subject to discovery under ORS 135.815 such as photographs and tangible objects, pretrial statements cannot generally be used as substantive evidence, but only for impeachment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(l)(a) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(l)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.815(l)(d) — 1 case
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.