136.617 Motion
to compel witness who may be incriminated to testify. In any criminal proceeding before
a court of record or in any proceeding before a grand jury, or in any
proceeding before a court of record under ORS 646.760, or in any proceeding for
the imposition of remedial or punitive sanction for contempt, if a witness
refuses to testify or produce evidence of any kind on the ground that the
witness may be incriminated thereby, the prosecuting attorney may move the
court to order the witness to testify or produce evidence. The court shall
forthwith hold a summary hearing at which the prosecuting attorney shall show
reasonable cause to believe the witness possesses knowledge relevant to the
proceeding, or that no privilege protects the evidence sought to be produced.
The witness may show cause why the witness should not be compelled to testify
or produce evidence. The court shall order the witness to testify regarding the
subject matter under inquiry upon such showing of reasonable cause or shall
order the production of evidence upon a finding that no privilege protects the
evidence sought, unless the court finds that to do so would be clearly contrary
to the public interest. The court shall hold the summary hearing outside the
presence of the jury and the public and may require the prosecuting attorney to
disclose the purpose of the testimony or evidence. The witness shall be
entitled to be represented by counsel at the summary hearing. [Formerly
139.190; 1975 c.255 §14; 1981 c.882 §1; 1991 c.724 §25a]
Notes of Decisions
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. O'Leary, 736 P.2d 173 (Or. 1987).
· cites it 18× “The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the closed hearing provision of ORS 136.617 violates Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Burleson, 160 P.3d 624 (Or. 2007).
· cites it 13× “” The trial court then concluded that, under ORS 136.617, even if the information was relevant and not privileged, it did not have to order witness to testify if it found “that to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest.”
State v. MacBale, 305 P.3d 107 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 9× “ORS 136.617. 4 The court considered the wording of Article I, section 10, and stated that it “is written in absolute terms; there are no explicit qualifications to its command that justice shall be administered openly.”
State v. Threet, 653 P.2d 960 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 4× “010(4) provides: “(4) An appeal may be taken from the circuit court in any special statutory proceeding under the same conditions, in the same manner and with like effect as from a judgment, decree or order entered in an action or suit, unless such appeal is expressly prohibited…”
State v. Soriano, 684 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “ORS 136.619 provides: “After complying with the order to testify or produce evidence and if but for ORS 136.”
State v. Hull, 595 P.2d 1240 (Or. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The Footes and Cartwright were given immunity from prosecution, ORS 136.617, 136.619, and their testimony was the only evidence that connected defendants with the alleged theft.”
State Ex Rel. Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Sams, 692 P.2d 116 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 3× “The petition alleged that defendant had done so pursuant to ORS 136.617, 1 and that this statute, to the extent that it provides for closed hearings, contravenes Or Const art I, § 10 and the federal first amendment.”
Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. O'LEARY, 724 P.2d 822 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 15× “Plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action for a declaration that ORS 136.617 violates the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Hull, 575 P.2d 1015 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “Foote and Marvin Cartwright were granted immunity from prosecution pursuant to ORS 136.617 and 136.619 in exchange for their testimony.”
State v. Herrera, 594 P.2d 823 (Or. 1979).
“760, if a witness refuses to testify or produce evidence of any kind on the ground that he may be incriminated thereby, and if the prosecuting attorney moves the court to order the witness to testify or produce evidence, the court shall forthwith hold a summary hearing at which…”
State v. Grabill, 579 P.2d 316 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “In criminal prosecutions the state has a choice: If a witness refuses to testify on the ground that the testimony may tend to be self-incriminating, the state may either grant the witness immunity, compelling *644 him to testify (ORS 136.”
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.