Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.440

Testimony of accomplice; corroboration; “accomplice” defined

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

      136.440 Testimony of accomplice; corroboration; “accomplice” defined. (1) A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances of the commission.

      (2) As used in this section, an “accomplice” means a witness in a criminal action who, according to the evidence adduced in the action, is criminally liable for the conduct of the defendant under ORS 161.155 and 161.165, or, if the witness is a juvenile, has committed a delinquent act, which, if committed by an adult, would make the adult criminally liable for the conduct of the defendant. [Formerly 136.550]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: State v. Oatney
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Oatney (2003) or · cites it 10× “[6] Those concerns are the basis for the statutory requirement, now contained in ORS 136.440, [7] that a defendant *480 cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of an accomplice witness; rather, other evidence must corroborate the accomplice witness's testimony.”
State v. Walton (1991) or · cites it 8× “He asserts that the only evidence supporting count 2 is Abbott's testimony that, when defendant emerged from the Plaid Pantry, he told her that he had shot the victim because "the man was stepping from the counter like he was going to go step on an alarm or something.”
State v. Washington (2014) or · cites it 8× “According to defendant, ORS 136.440 provides that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by other evidence.”
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) scotus · cites it 2× “22, § 742 (West 1969); Ore.Rev.Stat. § 136.440 (1984); S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-22-8 (1979).”
State v. Hull (1978) orctapp · cites it 22× “ORS 136.440 provides: "(1) A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
State v. Nielsen (1993) or · cites it 4× “[11] This rule, of course, does not affect the requirement of corroboration or testimony of an accomplice found in ORS 136.440 ("[a] conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant to…”
State v. Schoen (1978) orctapp · cites it 6× “ORS 136.440 (1) provides: "A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
State v. Payne (2020) or “095(4), without the additional accomplice corroboration requirement of ORS 136.440—this court applied a discretionary standard of review.”
State v. Langley (2000) or · cites it 6× “The issue of accomplice testimony generally arises under the corroboration requirement of ORS 136.440, which provides, in part: “(1) A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant…”
State v. Klein (2011) orctapp · cites it 4× “As explained below, we disagree on both points; Hutchens’ testimony could be corroborated by evidence of Hale’s and defendant’s statements, which were not testimony and thus not subject to ORS 136.440, and in any event, other corroborative evidence was adduced in addition to…”
State v. Simson (1989) or · cites it 5× “ORS 136.440 provides that a defendant may not be convicted based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.”
State v. Simson (1988) orctapp · cites it 14× “" Accomplice testimony is governed by ORS 136.440: "(1) A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.440(1) — 38 cases
State v. Walton (1991) or “He asserts that the only evidence supporting count 2 is Abbott's testimony that, when defendant emerged from the Plaid Pantry, he told her that he had shot the victim because "the man was stepping from the counter like he was going to go step on an alarm or something.”
State v. Washington (2014) or “According to defendant, ORS 136.440 provides that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by other evidence.”
State v. Schoen (1978) orctapp “ORS 136.440 (1) provides: "A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
State v. Langley (2000) or “The issue of accomplice testimony generally arises under the corroboration requirement of ORS 136.440, which provides, in part: “(1) A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant…”
State v. Egeland (2014) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.440(2) — 11 cases
State v. Hull (1978) orctapp “ORS 136.440 provides: "(1) A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
State v. Hull (1979) or
State v. Parkerson (2021) orctapp
State v. Black (2006) orctapp
State v. Adams (1988) orctapp
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.