136.675
Conditions for use of testimony of persons subjected to hypnosis. If either prosecution or defense
in any criminal proceeding in the State of Oregon intends to offer the
testimony of any person, including the defendant, who has been subjected to
hypnosis, mesmerism or any other form of the exertion of will power or the
power of suggestion which is intended to or results in a state of trance, sleep
or entire or partial unconsciousness relating to the subject matter of the
proposed testimony, performed by any person, it shall be a condition of the use
of such testimony that the entire procedure be recorded either on videotape or
any mechanical recording device. The unabridged videotape or mechanical
recording shall be made available to the other party or parties in accordance
with ORS 135.805 to 135.873. [1977 c.540 §1; 1983 c.740 §15]
136.680 [Amended by 1973 c.836 §246;
renumbered 136.475]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1979–1993 · leading case:
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987).
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987).
· cites it 2× “Ore. Rev. Stat. § 136.675 (1985). [20] This disposition makes it unnecessary to consider petitioner's claims that the trial court's order restricting her testimony was unconstitutionally broad and that the trial court's application of the order resulted in a denial of due…”
State v. Luther, 663 P.2d 1261 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 8× “The Jorgenson rule was recognized by the legislature six years after that decision when ORS 136.675 [3] was enacted. That statute requires, as a condition to the use of testimony of a person who has been subjected to hypnosis, that "the entire procedure be recorded either on…”
State v. Luther, 672 P.2d 691 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 6× “Without knowing what the answer of the witness would have been, the appellate court cannot determine whether the trial court's error in sustaining the objection caused any harm to the appellant, nor can it intelligently pass upon the trial court's ruling.”
State v. King, 733 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “See ORS 136.675 et seq. 10 Defendant does not argue that those procedures were not followed.”
State v. Classen, 590 P.2d 1198 (Or. 1979).
“For an example of a statutory rule in Oregon, see ORS 136.675 —136.695, requiring recording and other safeguards in obtaining testimony under hypnosis.”
State v. Peoples, 319 S.E.2d 177 (N.C. 1984).
“Armed with a proper and complete record of the entire hypnotic process, a court may exclude hypnotically refreshed testimony if it deems it too unreliable after considering the procedures employed in performing the hypnosis.”
State v. Trenary, 850 P.2d 356 (Or. 1993).
“735 (unlawfully intercepted communications may be excluded upon a motion to suppress); ORS 136.675 (testimony of person hypnotized in violation of statute is inadmissible).”
Luther v. State of Oregon, 732 P.2d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“ORS 136.675. At trial, Gena’s testimony regarding the relative location of petitioner and his nephew when the shot was fired varied.”
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.