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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855 (2026)

Material and information not subject to discovery

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

      135.855 Material and information not subject to discovery. (1) The following material and information shall not be subject to discovery under ORS 135.805 to 135.873:

      (a) Work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of the attorneys, peace officers or their agents in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of a criminal action.

      (b) The identity of a confidential informant where the identity of the informant is a prosecution secret and a failure to disclose will not infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant. Except as provided in ORS 135.873, disclosure shall not be denied hereunder of the identity of witnesses to be produced at trial.

      (c) Transcripts, recordings or memoranda of testimony of witnesses before the grand jury, except transcripts or recordings of statements made by the defendant.

      (d) Schematics, source codes or software of an instrument that was used to test a person’s breath, blood or urine to determine the alcoholic content of the person’s blood that are not in the actual possession or control of the state.

      (2) When some parts of certain material are discoverable under ORS 135.805 to 135.873 or 135.970, and other parts not discoverable, as much of the material shall be disclosed as is consistent with the provisions thereof. [1973 c.836 §218; 1999 c.304 §5; 2007 c.581 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · 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 28× “815 lists what must be disclosed and ORS 135.855 requires that all discovery, including that which was previously ordinarily made midtrial, must be made prior to trial.”
State v. Riddle, 8 P.3d 980 (Or. 2000). · cites it 8× “Defendant suggests that another statute, ORS 135.855(1), is relevant. That statute provides, in part: “The following material and information shall not be subject to discovery under ORS 135.”
Meyer v. State, 426 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “3d 980 (2000) (interpreting ORS 135.855(1)(a), a statute governing the different procedures in criminal discovery), A.”
State v. Clark, 630 P.2d 810 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “Unquestionably the procedures afforded in a preliminary hearing are potentially important to an accused, whether or not they are advantageous in a particular instance.”
State v. Bray, 383 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “815(1): “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873,[ 9 ] the district attorney shall disclose to a represented *596 defendant the following material and information within the possession or control of the district attorney: [[Image here]] “(g) Any material or…”
State v. Wyatt, 15 P.3d 22 (Or. 2000). “835 provides, in part: “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the defense shall disclose to the district attorney the following material and information within the possession or control of the defense: “(1) The names and addresses of persons, including the…”
State v. Riddle, 964 P.2d 1056 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “873 provide for discovery in criminal cases; ORS 135.855(1)(a) makes certain material exempt from those discovery requirements: "Work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of…”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “" Also, ORS 135.855(1) exempts "work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions * * * of police officers * * * in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of a…”
State v. Dyson, 636 P.2d 961 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “815 provides that: “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the district attorney shall disclose to the defendant the following material and information within his possession or control: “(1) The names and addresses of persons whom he intends to call as…”
State v. Farrar, 786 P.2d 161 (Or. 1990). “815(4) provides: “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the district attorney shall disclose to the defendant the following material and information within his possession or control: it* * * * * “(4) Any books, papers, documents, photographs or tangible…”
State v. Divito, 5 P.3d 1103 (Or. 2000). · cites it 4× “815 (1997), which provides, in part: *1104 "Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the district attorney shall disclose to the defendant the following material and information within the possession or control of the district attorney: "(1) The names and…”
State v. Ben, 798 P.2d 650 (Or. 1990). · cites it 2× “815(1) provides: “Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 and 135.873, the district attorney shall disclose to the defendant the following material and information within the possession or control of the district attorney: “(1) The names and addresses of persons whom the…”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(1) — 4 cases
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981). “815 lists what must be disclosed and ORS 135.855 requires that all discovery, including that which was previously ordinarily made midtrial, must be made prior to trial.”
State v. Riddle, 8 P.3d 980 (Or. 2000). “Defendant suggests that another statute, ORS 135.855(1), is relevant. That statute provides, in part: “The following material and information shall not be subject to discovery under ORS 135.”
State v. Cartwright, 20 P.3d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “" Also, ORS 135.855(1) exempts "work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions * * * of police officers * * * in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(1)(a) — 3 cases
Meyer v. State, 426 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “3d 980 (2000) (interpreting ORS 135.855(1)(a), a statute governing the different procedures in criminal discovery), A.”
State v. Riddle, 964 P.2d 1056 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “873 provide for discovery in criminal cases; ORS 135.855(1)(a) makes certain material exempt from those discovery requirements: "Work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions of…”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “" Also, ORS 135.855(1) exempts "work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions * * * of police officers * * * in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Dunning, 724 P.2d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Young, 816 P.2d 612 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Robertson, 412 P.3d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981). “815 lists what must be disclosed and ORS 135.855 requires that all discovery, including that which was previously ordinarily made midtrial, must be made prior to trial.”
State v. Clark, 630 P.2d 810 (Or. 1981). “Unquestionably the procedures afforded in a preliminary hearing are potentially important to an accused, whether or not they are advantageous in a particular instance.”
State v. Rossiter, 454 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Hartfield, 609 P.2d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(2) — 1 case
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “" Also, ORS 135.855(1) exempts "work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions * * * of police officers * * * in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Riddle, 8 P.3d 980 (Or. 2000). “Defendant suggests that another statute, ORS 135.855(1), is relevant. That statute provides, in part: “The following material and information shall not be subject to discovery under ORS 135.”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “" Also, ORS 135.855(1) exempts "work product, legal research, records, correspondence, reports or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories or conclusions * * * of police officers * * * in connection with the investigation, prosecution or defense of a…”
State v. Gallup, 816 P.2d 669 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Waterbury, 622 P.2d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
United States v. Brown, 477 F. Supp. 492 (D. Or. 1979).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.855(l)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Hartfield, 624 P.2d 588 (Or. 1981). “815 lists what must be disclosed and ORS 135.855 requires that all discovery, including that which was previously ordinarily made midtrial, must be made prior to trial.”
State v. Clark, 630 P.2d 810 (Or. 1981). “Unquestionably the procedures afforded in a preliminary hearing are potentially important to an accused, whether or not they are advantageous in a particular instance.”
State v. Riddle, 8 P.3d 980 (Or. 2000). “Defendant suggests that another statute, ORS 135.855(1), is relevant. That statute provides, in part: “The following material and information shall not be subject to discovery under ORS 135.”
State v. Wood, 678 P.2d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Hartfield, 609 P.2d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
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.