Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.310

Function of court; effect of judicial notice of a fact

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      136.310 Function of court; effect of judicial notice of a fact. All questions of law, including the admissibility of testimony, the facts preliminary to such admission and the construction of statutes and other writings and other rules of evidence shall be decided by the court. All discussions of law shall be addressed to it. Whenever the knowledge of the court is by statute made evidence of a fact, the court shall declare such knowledge to the jury, which is bound to accept it as conclusive, except as provided in ORS 40.085. [Amended by 1983 c.433 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1965–2019 · leading case: State v. Carlson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carlson (1991) or · cites it 2× “The Legislative Commentary also says that "[OEC 104(1)] is consistent with ORCP 59B and ORS 136.310, which provide that the Court shall decide `all questions of law, including the admissibility of testimony [and] the facts preliminary to such admission [.”
State v. Upton (2005) or · cites it 2× “320 provides: “Although the jury may find a general verdict, which includes questions of law as well as fact, it is bound, nevertheless, to receive as law what is laid down as such by the court; but all questions of fact, other than those mentioned in ORS 136.310, shall be…”
State v. Miller (1990) or · cites it 2× “Article I, section 11, provides in part that "the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury." The provision guarantees that the accused may be heard.”
State v. Miller (2008) or “” ORS 136.310. Because the presence or absence of probable cause is a question of law, the deputy’s testimony at trial — “I had reasonable suspicion, but I had not yet reached sufficiently [sic] to call it probable cause” — reflects, at best, the deputy’s opinion on a complex…”
State v. Enakiev (2001) orctapp “4 See ORS 136.310 (construction of rules of evidence is a question of law).”
State v. Hastings (1977) orctapp · cites it 3× “In a jury trial, it is clear that the court must inform the jury of facts judicially noted, ORS 136.310, 6 State v. Jones, supra. While the underlying rationale for informing the jury of facts judicially noted is that defendant is entitled to have the facts submitted to the…”
State v. Jones (1965) or · cites it 2× “blished by judicial knowledge taken by an appellate court long after the trial? By the same token, how can judicial notice taken by the trial court support the verdict of the jury if such knowledge is not communicated to the jury? Permitting either the trial court or this court…”
State v. Parker (2017) orctapp “Rainoldi, 351 Or 486, 498 , 268 P3d 568 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see ORS 136.310 (questions of law shall be decided by the court).”
State v. Cooksey (1965) or “If the court took judicial notice of any facts tending to establish venue, he failed to “declare such knowledge to the jury,” as required by ORS 136.310. The state relies on facts of which the trial judge could have taken judicial notice to supplement the evidence concerning…”
State v. Barbero (2019) orctapp “" This statutory scheme also describes the function of a criminal trial court in ORS 136.310 : "All questions of law, including the admissibility of testimony, the facts preliminary to such admission and the construction of statutes and other writings and other rules of evidence…”
State v. Gotham (1991) orctapp “We disagree. Defendant challenged the legality of the search and seizure in his motion to suppress.”
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.