Material and information not subject to discovery
Source:
Section 135.855 — Material and information not subject to discovery, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors135.html.
Notes of Decisions
Evidence was insufficient to show that disclosure of confidential informant’s identity was necessary for defendant’s defense where defense of entrapment was unsubstantiated. State v. Gill, 22 Or App 484, 539 P2d 1138 (1975)
Persons accused of murder were not entitled to order requiring recordation of the testimony of witnesses before the grand jury considering indictment against them. State ex rel Smith v. Murchison, 286 Or 469, 595 P2d 1237 (1979)
Where witness for the state had testified on direct examination by the state and grand jury testimony of that witness was previously tape-recorded, defendant was entitled, in furtherance of justice, to examine recording. State v. Hartfield, 290 Or 583, 624 P2d 588 (1981)
Trial court erred in ruling district attorney’s file was exempt from disclosure as work product where file consisted primarily of notes taken by district attorney during interviews with witnesses and contained no opinions, theories or conclusions. State v. Gallup, 108 Or App 508, 816 P2d 669 (1991)
Up to date