Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.865 (2026)
Effect of failure to comply with discovery requirements
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
135.865 Effect of failure to comply with discovery requirements. Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.805 to 135.873 and 135.970, 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. [1973 c.836 §219; 1999 c.304 §6]
135.870 [Amended by 1971 c.743 §321; repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Mai, 656 P.2d 315 (Or. 1982).
State v. Mai, 656 P.2d 315 (Or. 1982). “ORS 135.865 provides that the trial court, "[u]pon being apprised of any breach of the duty [of disclosure] * * * may * * * refuse to permit the witness to testify * * *.”
State v. Dyson, 636 P.2d 961 (Or. 1981). “The state appealed to the Court of Appeals from an order by a trial court allowing defendant’s motion under ORS 135.865 1 to exclude testimony of all state’s witnesses upon the ground that the state had not complied with defendant’s request for discovery by providing defendant…”
State v. Lajoie, 849 P.2d 479 (Or. 1993). “2d 315 (1982), the court held that "the preclusion sanction of ORS 135.865 is not inconsistent with Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, provided that the court finds that the prosecution is prejudiced by the defendant's failure to comply with the reciprocal…”
State v. Wyatt, 15 P.3d 22 (Or. 2000). “Mai, 294 Or 269 , 656 P2d 315 (1982), involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the witness preclusion sanction provided for in ORS 135.865. In Mai , this court upheld a trial court’s statutory right to exclude witness testimony as a sanction for a discovery violation in…”
State v. King, 566 P.2d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 135.865 provides: "Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.”
State v. Pilon, 516 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “]” ORS 135.865. In this case, the morning that trial was set to begin, February 12, 2019—285 days after arraignment on May 3, 2018—the prosecution provided defense counsel two police reports that had previously been undisclosed.”
State v. Wolfe, 542 P.2d 482 (Or. 1975). “865 the trial court was justified in invoking sanctions provided by ORS 135.865 for use in the event of violations *484 of ORS 135.”
State v. Johnson, 554 P.2d 624 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “ORS 135.865 provides: "Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.”
State v. Koennecke, 545 P.2d 127 (Or. 1976). “[2] At the conclusion of the next to the last hearing before the entry of the order in dispute, at which the refusal of the police officers to surrender their service revolvers was discussed, the following appears: "MRS OUZTS: [Deputy district attorney] May I be heard? ORS…”
State v. Brown, 800 P.2d 259 (Or. 1990). “ORS 135.865. 15 Defense counsel told the trial court that he had not received a copy of the police report.”
State v. Harshman, 658 P.2d 1173 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “He argues that pursuant to ORS 135.865, the trial court should have excluded evidence of the Blue Bucket sale or, in the alternative, a continuance should have been granted.”
State v. Addicks, 560 P.2d 1095 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “) ORS 135.865 sets forth the options open to the trial court upon a party’s failure to comply with discovery requirements and provides: "Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.”
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.