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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.825 (2026)

Other disclosure to defense; special conditions

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

      135.825 Other disclosure to defense; special conditions. Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the district attorney shall disclose to the defense:

      (1) The occurrence of a search or seizure; and

      (2) Upon written request by the defense, any relevant material or information obtained thereby, the circumstances of the search or seizure, and the circumstances of the acquisition of any specified statements from the defendant. [1973 c.836 §215; 1999 c.304 §2]

 

      135.830 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §161; renumbered 135.355]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–1999 · leading case: State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981). · cites it 4× “See also ORS 135.825. Things to be disclosed by the defense to the prosecution are listed in ORS 135.”
State v. Vasquez-Hernandez, 977 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “815, the disclosure statute, was violated and in turn ORS 135.825, was violated in that information was not provided the Defendant about a search of his house.”
State v. Sweet, 858 P.2d 477 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “…they may have seized and the results of any tests that might have been conducted on the evidence seized. ORS 135.815; ORS 135.825.”
State v. Vance, 631 P.2d 843 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “815 and ORS 135.825. (3) Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.”
State v. Andes, 803 P.2d 273 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “Defendant assigns as error that the court denied his motion to require the state to disclose information in its possession of all instances relating to the operation of the Intoxilyzer Model 4011A when an individual took multiple tests and the results varied, when there was a…”
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.