Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.425 (2026)
Confessions and admissions; corroboration; defendant’s conduct in relation to declaration or act of another
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
136.425 Confessions and admissions; corroboration; defendant’s conduct in relation to declaration or act of another. (1) A confession or admission of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or otherwise, cannot be given in evidence against the defendant when it was made under the influence of fear produced by threats.
(2) Except as provided in ORS 136.427, a confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed.
(3) Evidence of a defendant’s conduct in relation to a declaration or act of another, in the presence and within the observation of the defendant, cannot be given when the defendant’s conduct occurred while the defendant was in the custody of a peace officer unless the defendant’s conduct affirmatively indicated the belief of the defendant in the truth of the matter stated or implied in the declaration or act of the other person. [Formerly 136.540; 2009 c.875 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Smith
State v. Smith (1986)
“) [6] It could be argued that ORS 136.425 is incomplete in that it is only concerned with confessions or admissions "made under the influence of fear produced by threats" and does not address confessions or admissions made because of promises of reward or immunity.”
State v. Chatelain (2009)
“We allowed review in this criminal case to determine the scope of the statutory corroboration requirement presently found in ORS 136.425(1), which we set out below. Defendant was charged with, among other things, second-degree burglary arising out of an incident where he entered…”
State v. Hogeland (2017)
“First, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his admissions, because, in defendant’s view, they were involuntary under ORS 136.425(1) and the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
State v. Lerch (1984)
“Our primary reason for allowing review was to consider the degree of proof required by ORS 136.425(1) to corroborate the defendant’s confession, when the evidence is solely circumstantial.”
State v. Montez (1990)
“Defendant argues that the rationale of ORS 136.425(1) applies to prior crimes evidence introduced in sentencing proceedings.”
State v. Fry (2002)
“ORS 136.425(1). We agree with defendant as to three of the rape convictions and therefore reverse those convictions.”
State v. Belle (2016)
“Defendant contends that Fields made “a threat to contact defendant’s commanding officer if he did not cooperate and a promise that he would not contact defendant’s commanding officer if defendant did cooperate.”
State v. McCombs (2024)
“an’s testi- mony that the pain that the child related “could have been the result” of the defendant touching the child’s hymen or of the defendant using force was sufficient to corroborate the defendant’s confession that he penetrated the child with his penis; although that…”
State v. Muzzy (2003)
“ORS 136.425(1). We affirm. Because defendant was found guilty, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.”
State v. Powell (2012)
“In this case, the trial court found that defendant’s statements to private investigators were induced by the investigators’ promises of leniency and other benefits and therefore suppressed those statements and a second set of inculpatory statements that defendant made to a…”
State v. Foster (1987)
“This case presents the questions whether defendant's statements made during police interrogation were obtained in violation of ORS 136.425(1), which prohibits the state from introducing evidence of a confession or admission of a defendant if "made under the influence of fear…”
State v. Delp (2008)
“Defendant argued to the trial court that, under ORS 136.425, a confession must be corroborated by “some other proof that the crime has been committed” and that the state’s evidence was insufficient in that regard.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.425(1) — 77 cases
State v. Chatelain (2009)
“We allowed review in this criminal case to determine the scope of the statutory corroboration requirement presently found in ORS 136.425(1), which we set out below. Defendant was charged with, among other things, second-degree burglary arising out of an incident where he entered…”
State v. Hogeland (2017)
“First, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his admissions, because, in defendant’s view, they were involuntary under ORS 136.425(1) and the Oregon and United States constitutions.”
State v. Lerch (1984)
“Our primary reason for allowing review was to consider the degree of proof required by ORS 136.425(1) to corroborate the defendant’s confession, when the evidence is solely circumstantial.”
State v. Montez (1990)
“Defendant argues that the rationale of ORS 136.425(1) applies to prior crimes evidence introduced in sentencing proceedings.”
State v. Fry (2002)
“ORS 136.425(1). We agree with defendant as to three of the rape convictions and therefore reverse those convictions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.425(2) — 19 cases
State v. Carlson (1991)
State v. Moreno (2016)
State v. McCombs (2024)
“an’s testi- mony that the pain that the child related “could have been the result” of the defendant touching the child’s hymen or of the defendant using force was sufficient to corroborate the defendant’s confession that he penetrated the child with his penis; although that…”
State v. Judd (2019)
State v. Nickles (2019)
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.425(l) — 1 case
State v. Campbell (2008)
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.