Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.690 (2026)

Commencement of DNA testing proceedings; discovery

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      138.690 Commencement of DNA testing proceedings; discovery. (1) A person may file in the circuit court in which the judgment of conviction was entered a petition requesting the commencement of a DNA testing proceeding, and requesting that the court appoint an attorney for the purpose of determining whether to file a motion under ORS 138.692 for the performance of DNA testing on specific evidence, if the person has been convicted of aggravated murder or a felony in which DNA evidence could exist and is related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction.

      (2) After proceedings have been commenced under subsection (1) of this section:

      (a) Upon motion of the person, the court shall order that the person be provided with a copy of property and evidence control and disposition records for all evidence related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction. If forensic testing on the evidence has previously occurred, the court shall further order that the person be provided with access to the results of the testing and to any other written materials related to the testing, including reports, underlying data, notes and protocols.

      (b) Upon motion of the person and a showing that good faith efforts to obtain discovery materials from prior defense counsel were made and were unsuccessful, the court shall order that the person be provided reasonable access to discovery materials in the possession of the district attorney and law enforcement agencies that the person would have received under ORS 135.815 prior to trial.

      (3) At any time after a person files a petition under subsection (1) of this section, the person may file a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that the person does not wish to proceed with DNA testing. Upon receipt of the motion, the court shall dismiss the petition without prejudice.

      (4) The court may not charge a fee for any filing under ORS 138.688 to 138.700.

      (5) The State Court Administrator shall develop forms for proceedings under ORS 138.688 to 138.700. The State Court Administrator shall provide the forms to the clerk of each circuit court, who shall make the forms available to the public.

      (6) ORS 138.688 to 138.700 are not the exclusive means by which a person convicted of a crime may obtain post-conviction DNA testing, and nothing in ORS 138.688 to 138.700 limits or affects any other means by which a person convicted of a crime may obtain post-conviction DNA testing.

      (7) If the victim did not request notification under ORS 147.433, the district attorney may provide notification upon the filing of a petition under this section if the name and address of the victim are known to the district attorney. [2001 c.697 §1; 2005 c.759 §1; 2007 c.800 §1; 2015 c.564 §1; 2019 c.368 §3]

 

      Note: See note under 138.688.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009).
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). · cites it 2× “2009); Ore. Rev. Stat. §138.690 (2007); 42 Pa. 6 DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIAL DIST.”
State v. Diaz-Avalos, 428 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 25× “*38 Defendant unsuccessfully moved for DNA testing under ORS 138.690 (2011). 1 He *934 appeals the trial court's order denying the request for DNA testing on two grounds.”
State v. Johnson, 374 P.3d 998 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 15× “In these consolidated cases, defendant appeals a trial court order that denied defendant’s motions under ORS 138.690 for DNA testing on the ground that defendant had waived in his 1993 plea agreement his right to seek that relief.”
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “More than 20 years later, defendant moved for post-conviction DNA testing under ORS 138.690 and ORS 138.692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.”
Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). “83 (West, Westlaw through 2011 Files 1-8, 10-18 of the 129th GA (2011-2012)); Or.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 138.690 to .840 (West, Westlaw through Ch.”
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11× “Then, in 2007, defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing pursuant to ORS 138.690. The trial court entered an order denying the motion, concluding that the terms of the plea agreement barred defendant from “seeking new evidence through DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Jenkins, 393 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “In 2009, defendant moved to allow independent testing of forensic evidence under ORS 138.690 (“A person may file in the circuit court in which the judgment of conviction was entered a motion requesting the performance of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing on specific evidence *…”
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.690 to 138.698. 1 The court denied the petition, and defendant appealed.”
State v. Dupigney, 988 A.2d 851 (Conn. 2010). “2010); Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 138.690 and 138.692 (2007); 42 Pa.”
State v. Nefstad, 456 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “ORS 138.690; ORS 138.692. The person filing a motion under ORS 138.”
State v. Harris, 358 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Defendant petitions for reconsideration of the Appellate Commissioner’s order dismissing defendant’s appeal of a circuit court order granting his motion for DNA testing under ORS 138.690 to 138.698. 1 The petition for reconsideration is allowed; the court adheres to the…”
Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 207 (Vet. App. 2009). “§ 2953-72 (2009); OREGON — Ore. Rev. Stat. § 138.690 (2007); PENNSYLVANIA — 42 Pa.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.690(1) — 11 cases
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “More than 20 years later, defendant moved for post-conviction DNA testing under ORS 138.690 and ORS 138.692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.”
State v. Diaz-Avalos, 428 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “*38 Defendant unsuccessfully moved for DNA testing under ORS 138.690 (2011). 1 He *934 appeals the trial court's order denying the request for DNA testing on two grounds.”
State v. Jenkins, 393 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “In 2009, defendant moved to allow independent testing of forensic evidence under ORS 138.690 (“A person may file in the circuit court in which the judgment of conviction was entered a motion requesting the performance of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing on specific evidence *…”
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Then, in 2007, defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing pursuant to ORS 138.690. The trial court entered an order denying the motion, concluding that the terms of the plea agreement barred defendant from “seeking new evidence through DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.690 to 138.698. 1 The court denied the petition, and defendant appealed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.690(2) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Then, in 2007, defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing pursuant to ORS 138.690. The trial court entered an order denying the motion, concluding that the terms of the plea agreement barred defendant from “seeking new evidence through DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Diaz-Avalos, 428 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “*38 Defendant unsuccessfully moved for DNA testing under ORS 138.690 (2011). 1 He *934 appeals the trial court's order denying the request for DNA testing on two grounds.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.690(l)(a)(B) — 1 case
State v. Thunderbird, 359 P.3d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
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.