Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.420

Testimony to be given orally in court; exceptions

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

      136.420 Testimony to be given orally in court; exceptions. In a criminal action, the testimony of a witness shall be given orally in the presence of the court and jury, except:

      (1) In the case of a witness whose testimony is taken by deposition by order of the court in pursuance of the consent of the parties, as provided in ORS 136.080 to 136.100; or

      (2) As provided in ORS 131.045. [Formerly 136.530; 2009 c.219 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: State v. Conrad
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Conrad (2016) orctapp · cites it 7× “Defendant first argued that the evidence was prohibited because the videos contained “testimony” and ORS 136.420 1 restricts criminal trials to in-court testimony.”
State v. Rascon (2015) orctapp · cites it 16× “Defendant argued that both ORS 136.420 and OEC 403 precluded the trial court from admitting the videotaped interview into evidence.”
State v. Agee (2015) or · cites it 4× “Defendant contends that the holding in O’Leary is consistent with ORS 136.420, which precludes (with two exceptions not relevant here) any form of “testimony,” including depositions, in a criminal case, other than oral testimony in the presence of the court and jury.”
State v. Wixom (2015) orctapp · cites it 4× “Before trial, defendant moved to exclude the interview, relying on both ORS 136.420 and OEC 403. The trial court denied the motion.”
State v. Agee (2016) or · cites it 2× “The prosecutor’s continued questioning of Davenport constituted, in essence, a pretrial deposition — the sort of discovery that is not permitted under the statutes governing pretrial discovery in criminal matters and that is prohibited by the requirement in ORS 136.420 that all…”
State v. McMullin (2015) orctapp · cites it 5× “With respect to his first assignment of error, defendant contends that ORS 136.420 1 precluded the trial court from admitting the videotaped interview into evidence.”
State v. Copeland (2013) or “That gratuitous entry more closely resembled a statement in a police report detailing a hindering-prosecution offense than an official statement narrowly documenting the fulfillment of the officer’s official duty (which was to make the arrest and document the fact of arrest).”
Davis v. Kelly (2020) orctapp “” ORS 136.420(1) (stating the general rule and creating an exception “[i]n the case of a witness whose testimony is taken by deposition by order of the court in pursuance of the consent of the parties, as provided in ORS 136.”
State v. Sondenna (2008) orctapp · cites it 2× “The judge observed that, under ORS 136.420, 2 such a procedure might be possible if defendant consented.”
State v. Garcia-Rocio (2017) orctapp “See Conrad, 280 Or App at 327-28 (noting that the defendant’s motion in limine sought to exclude the videos under ORS 136.420 and under OEC 403). And, in this case, there are additional indicators that the court engaged in the required OEC 403 balancing that were not present in…”
State v. Meyers (1998) orctapp “330 (certain rules of civil procedure “regulate the conduct of the trial of criminal actions”); ORS 136.420 (testimony of witnesses in a criminal action).”
State v. Wilson (2007) orctapp “On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) giving an “acquittal first” instruction pursuant to ORS 136.420(2), (2) denying a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, (3) instructing the jury, based on the Oregon Supreme Court’s affirmance of a prior…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.420(1) — 1 case
Davis v. Kelly (2020) orctapp “” ORS 136.420(1) (stating the general rule and creating an exception “[i]n the case of a witness whose testimony is taken by deposition by order of the court in pursuance of the consent of the parties, as provided in ORS 136.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.420(2) — 1 case
State v. Wilson (2007) orctapp “On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) giving an “acquittal first” instruction pursuant to ORS 136.420(2), (2) denying a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, (3) instructing the jury, based on the Oregon Supreme Court’s affirmance of a prior…”
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.