135.873
Protective orders.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Local
government” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.116.
(b) “Sexual
offense” includes but is not limited to a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005.
(c) “State
government” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.111.
(d) “Victim” has
the meaning given that term in ORS 131.007.
(2) Upon a
showing of good cause, the court may at any time order that specified
disclosures be denied, restricted or deferred, or make such other order as is
appropriate.
(3) Upon request
of any party, the court may permit a showing of good cause for denial or
regulation of disclosures, or portion of such showing, to be made in camera. A
record shall be made of such proceedings.
(4) If the court
enters an order granting relief following a showing in camera, the entire
record of the showing shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the
court, to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.
Except for information or materials subject to an order that has been entered
under subsection (5) or (6) of this section, the trial court, in its
discretion, may, after the case has been concluded, unseal matters previously
sealed.
(5) Upon the
request of a district attorney or the victim, the court shall enter a
protective order prohibiting any party to or attorney in, or the agent of a
party to or attorney in, criminal proceedings involving a sexual offense, an
offense involving the visual or audio recording of sexual conduct by a child or
invasion of personal privacy under ORS 163.700 or 163.701 from copying or
disseminating any information of a sexually explicit nature including, but not
limited to, photographs depicting a person in a state of nudity, photographs of
human genitalia, any information of the prior sexual history of the victim and
any visual or audio recording of the sexual victimization.
(6) Upon the
request of a district attorney or the victim, unless the court finds good cause
to do otherwise, the court shall enter a protective order prohibiting any party
to or attorney in, or the agent of a party to or attorney in, criminal
proceedings involving a sexual offense, an offense involving the visual or
audio recording of sexual conduct by a child or invasion of personal privacy
under ORS 163.700 or 163.701 from copying or disseminating a visual or audio
recording of the victim describing the victim’s sexual victimization.
(7)
Notwithstanding a protective order entered under subsection (5) or (6) of this
section, information or materials described in subsections (5) and (6) may be
copied or disseminated for the purpose of:
(a) Providing
discovery;
(b) Submitting
evidence to a grand jury, a court, an agency of state government, a local
government or a federal agency for use in judicial or administrative
proceedings;
(c) Having the
information or materials examined by an expert witness for the court, the state
or any party;
(d) Providing
copies of the information or materials to the parties’ attorneys or agents; or
(e) Sharing the
information or materials with an agency of state government for use in carrying
out duties imposed on the agency by statute.
(8) Upon the
request of the victim, the court may order that the victim be provided with a
copy of information or materials described in subsections (5) and (6) of this
section. [1973 c.836 §220; 2005 c.531 §1; 2009 c.713 §10; 2015 c.645 §6]
135.875 [1969 c.293 §1; renumbered
135.455]
135.880 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §176;
renumbered 135.465]
DIVERSION
(Generally)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases, 1975–2016 · leading case:
State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “815 and ORS 135.873, because they relate to the victim and no evidentiary privilege protected the records from discovery, and (2) he was constitutionally entitled to an in camera review of the DHS records and to disclosure of relevant and exculpatory material in DHS’s records…”
State Ex Rel. Dugan v. Tiktin, 837 P.2d 959 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 10× “ORS 135.873; 3 State ex rel Carlile v. Lewis, 310 Or 541, 543-44 , 800 P2d 786 (1990); State v.”
State Ex Rel. Carlile v. Lewis, 800 P.2d 786 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 4× “” ORS 135.873 provides for an in camera “showing of good cause” for disclosure.”
State v. Lajoie, 849 P.2d 479 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “585 to ORS 135.873, Oregon's reciprocal discovery statutes, when he failed to disclose the names of two defense witnesses until the morning of the trial and when he instructed witnesses not to speak to the prosecutor unless he was present.”
State v. Bray, 383 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“855 nor ORS 135.873 is relevant to this aspect of defendant’s argument.”
State v. Pettit, 675 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “” ORS 135.873 is derived in part from Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State Ex Rel. Davey v. Frankel, 823 P.2d 394 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 2× “2d 786 (1990) (interpreting " in camera " in ORS 135.873(2) in respect of protective orders).”
State v. Warren, 746 P.2d 711 (Or. 1987).
“ORS 135.873 allows in camera review by the trial judge when a party shows good cause for restricted disclosure.”
State v. Dyson, 636 P.2d 961 (Or. 1981).
“805 through ORS 135.873] * * *.” Osburn, Pretrial Discovery Under the Oregon Criminal Procedure Code, 10 Will.”
State v. Ben, 798 P.2d 650 (Or. 1990).
“805 to ORS 135.873. The court also concluded that the state was prejudiced by the misconduct and that the trial court “could and did believe that it was unlikely that the witnesses would have spoken to the prosecutor under any circumstances.”
State v. Crenshaw, 764 P.2d 1372 (Or. 1988).
“ORS 135.873(1) gives the court authority to *169 “make such other order[s] as is appropriate” upon a showing of good cause in relation to discovery matters in criminal cases.”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Finally, the possibility that sensitive information, such as the existence of an ongoing investigation, might be revealed or jeopardized by premature disclosure is obviated by ORS 135.873(1), which allows the court, for good cause shown, to issue a protective order denying,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.873(1) — 4 cases
State v. Pettit, 675 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“” ORS 135.873 is derived in part from Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State v. Crenshaw, 764 P.2d 1372 (Or. 1988).
“ORS 135.873(1) gives the court authority to *169 “make such other order[s] as is appropriate” upon a showing of good cause in relation to discovery matters in criminal cases.”
State v. Divito, 955 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Finally, the possibility that sensitive information, such as the existence of an ongoing investigation, might be revealed or jeopardized by premature disclosure is obviated by ORS 135.873(1), which allows the court, for good cause shown, to issue a protective order denying,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.873(2) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Davey v. Frankel, 823 P.2d 394 (Or. 1991).
“2d 786 (1990) (interpreting " in camera " in ORS 135.873(2) in respect of protective orders).”
State Ex Rel. Dugan v. Tiktin, 837 P.2d 959 (Or. 1992).
“ORS 135.873; 3 State ex rel Carlile v. Lewis, 310 Or 541, 543-44 , 800 P2d 786 (1990); State v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.873(3) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Dugan v. Tiktin, 837 P.2d 959 (Or. 1992).
“ORS 135.873; 3 State ex rel Carlile v. Lewis, 310 Or 541, 543-44 , 800 P2d 786 (1990); State v.”
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.