136.220
Challenge for implied bias.
A challenge for implied bias shall be allowed for any of the following causes
and for no other:
(1) Consanguinity
or affinity within the fourth degree to the person alleged to be injured by the
offense charged in the accusatory instrument, to the complainant or to the
defendant.
(2) Standing in
the relation of guardian and ward, attorney and client, physician and patient,
naturopathic physician and patient, physician associate and patient, nurse
practitioner and patient, master and servant, debtor and creditor, principal
and agent or landlord and tenant with the:
(a) Defendant;
(b) Person
alleged to be injured by the offense charged in the accusatory instrument; or
(c) Complainant.
(3) Being a
member of the family, a partner in business with or in the employment of any
person referred to in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) of this section or a surety
in the action or otherwise for the defendant.
(4) Having served
on the grand jury which found the indictment or on a jury of inquest which
inquired into the death of a person whose death is the subject of the
indictment or information.
(5) Having been
one of a jury formerly sworn in the same action, and whose verdict was set
aside or which was discharged without a verdict after the cause was submitted
to it.
(6) Having served
as a juror in a civil action, suit or proceeding brought against the defendant
for substantially the same act charged as an offense.
(7) Having served
as a juror in a criminal action upon substantially the same facts, transaction
or criminal episode. [Amended by 1961 c.444 §1; 1967 c.372 §1; 1973 c.836 §232;
1999 c.1051 §252; 2014 c.45 §22; 2017 c.356 §15; 2024 c.73 §36]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case:
State v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 1308 (Or. 1992).
State v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 1308 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 42× “The basis for defendant's challenge was ORS 136.220, which provides in part: "A challenge for implied bias shall be allowed for any of the following causes and for no other: "* * * * * "(2) Standing in the relation of * * * master and servant * * * with the: "(a) Defendant; "(b)…”
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982).
· cites it 2× “22, § 660 (1971); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 136.220 (1979); S. D. Comp.”
Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022).
“210; ORS 136.220; ORS 10.215; ORS 136.415. If a jury trial is used to determine a criminal defendant’s guilt or innocence, then fundamental fairness requires that the jury trial be one that incorporates any element that, according to “the traditions that have shaped our…”
State v. Tucker, 845 P.2d 904 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Defendant does not claim that those jurors should have been excused for implied bias under ORS 136.220. Therefore, the issue is whether the jurors actually were biased.”
State v. Juniors, 915 So. 2d 291 (La. 2005).
“Code § 29-17-36(2) (2005); Or.Rev. Stat. § 136.220(2) (2003). [3] Further, she did not raise her hand when the court asked the entire panel: "Does anyone feel that they cannot follow the law and instructions as given to you by the court at the conclusion of this trial?" [4]…”
State v. Barone, 986 P.2d 5 (Or. 1999).
“It shall be formed, except as otherwise provided in ORS 136.220 to 136.250, in the same manner provided by ORCP 57 B, D(l)(a), D(l)(b), D(l)(g) andE.”
State v. Kauhi, 948 P.2d 1036 (Haw. 1997).
“22 § 660 (West 1992); Or.Rev.Stat. § 136.220 (1995); S.D. Codified.”
State v. Smith, 2006 WI 74 (Wis. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 16-33-304 (b)(2)(B)(i) (2006) (providing grounds to strike for cause if the juror is employed by defendant or complainant); Idaho Code § 19-2020 (2) (2006) (same); Iowa R.”
State v. Evans, 182 P.3d 175 (Or. 2008).
“2 ORCP 57 D(l), as supplemented by ORS 136.220, governs the various grounds on which a prospective juror may be challenged for cause in criminal cases.”
State v. Mannix, 326 P.3d 1236 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “In a criminal trial, a challenge to potential jurors may be made for implied bias, ORS 136.220, or actual bias, ORS 136.210(1) and ORCP 57D.”
Earle v. McCarthy, 560 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “«‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ » Ordinance Section 136.220 provides that any "farm use” is permitted without restriction in an EFU zone.”
State v. Duvigneaud, 781 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, defendant does not argue that any of the jurors should have been excluded for implied bias under ORS 136.220; nor does he argue that ORS 136.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.220(1) — 2 cases
State v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 1308 (Or. 1992).
“The basis for defendant's challenge was ORS 136.220, which provides in part: "A challenge for implied bias shall be allowed for any of the following causes and for no other: "* * * * * "(2) Standing in the relation of * * * master and servant * * * with the: "(a) Defendant; "(b)…”
State v. Mannix, 326 P.3d 1236 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“In a criminal trial, a challenge to potential jurors may be made for implied bias, ORS 136.220, or actual bias, ORS 136.210(1) and ORCP 57D.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.220(2) — 1 case
State v. Juniors, 915 So. 2d 291 (La. 2005).
“Code § 29-17-36(2) (2005); Or.Rev. Stat. § 136.220(2) (2003). [3] Further, she did not raise her hand when the court asked the entire panel: "Does anyone feel that they cannot follow the law and instructions as given to you by the court at the conclusion of this trial?" [4]…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.220(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 1308 (Or. 1992).
“The basis for defendant's challenge was ORS 136.220, which provides in part: "A challenge for implied bias shall be allowed for any of the following causes and for no other: "* * * * * "(2) Standing in the relation of * * * master and servant * * * with the: "(a) Defendant; "(b)…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.220(3) — 2 cases
State v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 1308 (Or. 1992).
“The basis for defendant's challenge was ORS 136.220, which provides in part: "A challenge for implied bias shall be allowed for any of the following causes and for no other: "* * * * * "(2) Standing in the relation of * * * master and servant * * * with the: "(a) Defendant; "(b)…”
State v. Smith, 2006 WI 74 (Wis. 2006).
“§ 16-33-304 (b)(2)(B)(i) (2006) (providing grounds to strike for cause if the juror is employed by defendant or complainant); Idaho Code § 19-2020 (2) (2006) (same); Iowa R.”
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.