Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions

ORS 135.845
Time of disclosure


(1)

The obligations to disclose shall be performed as soon as practicable following the filing of an indictment or information in the circuit court or the filing of a complaint or information charging a misdemeanor or violation of a city ordinance. The court may supervise the exercise of discovery to the extent necessary to insure that it proceeds properly and expeditiously.

(2)

If, after complying with the provisions of ORS 135.805 (Applicability) to 135.873 (Protective orders) and 135.970 (Information required when victim contacted by defense), a party finds, either before or during trial, additional material or information which is subject to or covered by these provisions, the party must promptly notify the other party of the additional material or information. [1973 c.836 §217; 1999 c.304 §4]

Notes of Decisions

The duty to disclose may arise prior to the filing of an indictment. State v. Johnson, 26 Or App 651, 554 P2d 624 (1976)

Where defendant did not request discovery in accordance with this section he could not claim prejudice as result of state's alleged failure to comply with discovery pursuant to ORS 135.815. State v. Dixon, 31 Or App 1027, 571 P2d 922 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Notwithstanding that defendant sought discovery of material from district attorney more than five weeks prior to trial, materials delivered two days before trial were furnished as "soon as practicable" where delay was not caused by district attorney's office. State v. Carsner, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 339 (1977)

Where, without notifying defense as required by this section, prosecution used sexual abuse victim's dress to impeach defendant, new trial was required. State v. Dickerson, 36 Or App 479, 584 P2d 787 (1978)

Since this section does not require defendant to request discovery material at any particular time when prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations and where defendant's use of evidence required no examination prior to trial, discovery motion made during trial was timely. State v. Clements, 52 Or App 309, 628 P2d 433 (1981)

It was proper for trial court to order usable copy of videotape be provided defendant, at her expense, where state previously had allowed inspection of videotape in police officer's presence. State v. Kull, 298 Or 38, 688 P2d 1327 (1984)

Absent showing that party intended to avoid compliance, no discovery violation occurs until party finds additional information or material and fails to promptly notify other party. State v. Dillard, 100 Or App 645, 787 P2d 1307 (1990); State v. Beaty, 127 Or App 448, 873 P2d 385 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 135.805 to 135.873

See also annotations under ORS 133.755 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Copy of letter sent to district court and also to district attorney's office, entering not guilty plea and stating "by copy of this letter I am demanding reciprocal discovery from the District Attorney's office," was insufficient to make formal demand for disclosure of classes of information available under these sections. State v. Sheppard, 32 Or App 345, 573 P2d 1276 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Specifications, operating instructions and repair and maintenance records for radar device with which arresting officer measured defendant's speed were not discoverable under these sections. State v. Spada, 33 Or App 257, 576 P2d 33 (1978), aff'd286 Or 305, 594 P2d 815 (1979)

These sections afford defendant opportunity to obtain specific and detailed information about state's theory of case and evidence it intends to produce at trial, and purposes that indictments and complaints are designed to serve in criminal cases are now served as well or better by discovery. State v. Strandquist, 57 Or App 404, 644 P2d 658 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in discovery statutes prevents state from initiating grand jury investigation of possible criminal activities by potential defense witnesses. State v. Huffman, 65 Or App 594, 672 P2d 1351 (1983)

Where defendant appeals conviction and trial court precluded defense witness because of alleged discovery violation and state being prejudiced, trial court obligated to explore other alternatives to remedy prejudice before precluding witness from testifying. State v. Gill, 96 Or App 358, 772 P2d 957 (1989)

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 354-369 (1972); 10 WLJ 145-166 (1974); 18 WLR 279 (1982)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021