Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions

ORS 135.873
Protective orders

(1)

As used in this section:

(a)

“Local government” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.116 (“Local government” and “local service district” defined).

(b)

“Sexual offense” includes but is not limited to a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A).

(c)

“State government” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.111 (“State government” defined).

(d)

“Victim” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.007 (“Victim” defined).

(2)

Upon a showing of good cause, the court may at any time order that specified disclosures be denied, restricted or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate.

(3)

Upon request of any party, the court may permit a showing of good cause for denial or regulation of disclosures, or portion of such showing, to be made in camera. A record shall be made of such proceedings.

(4)

If the court enters an order granting relief following a showing in camera, the entire record of the showing shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. Except for information or materials subject to an order that has been entered under subsection (5) or (6) of this section, the trial court, in its discretion, may, after the case has been concluded, unseal matters previously sealed.

(5)

Upon the request of a district attorney or the victim, the court shall enter a protective order prohibiting any party to or attorney in, or the agent of a party to or attorney in, criminal proceedings involving a sexual offense, an offense involving the visual or audio recording of sexual conduct by a child or invasion of personal privacy under ORS 163.700 (Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree) or 163.701 (Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree) from copying or disseminating any information of a sexually explicit nature including, but not limited to, photographs depicting a person in a state of nudity, photographs of human genitalia, any information of the prior sexual history of the victim and any visual or audio recording of the sexual victimization.

(6)

Upon the request of a district attorney or the victim, unless the court finds good cause to do otherwise, the court shall enter a protective order prohibiting any party to or attorney in, or the agent of a party to or attorney in, criminal proceedings involving a sexual offense, an offense involving the visual or audio recording of sexual conduct by a child or invasion of personal privacy under ORS 163.700 (Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree) or 163.701 (Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree) from copying or disseminating a visual or audio recording of the victim describing the victim’s sexual victimization.

(7)

Notwithstanding a protective order entered under subsection (5) or (6) of this section, information or materials described in subsections (5) and (6) may be copied or disseminated for the purpose of:

(a)

Providing discovery;

(b)

Submitting evidence to a grand jury, a court, an agency of state government, a local government or a federal agency for use in judicial or administrative proceedings;

(c)

Having the information or materials examined by an expert witness for the court, the state or any party;

(d)

Providing copies of the information or materials to the parties’ attorneys or agents; or

(e)

Sharing the information or materials with an agency of state government for use in carrying out duties imposed on the agency by statute.

(8)

Upon the request of the victim, the court may order that the victim be provided with a copy of information or materials described in subsections (5) and (6) of this section. [1973 c.836 §220; 2005 c.531 §1; 2009 c.713 §10; 2015 c.645 §6]

Notes of Decisions

It was error to issue protective order where state affidavit failed to establish required “good cause” for doing so but error was harmless because there is little likelihood that disclosure of address of witnesses would have affected result of trial. State v. Pettit, 66 Or App 575, 675 P2d 183 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court had authority upon defendant’s request to order district attorney’s file to be copied and sealed when defendant showed good cause for preserving evidence of what was in file at that time. State v. Crenshaw, 307 Or 160, 764 P2d 1372 (1988)

Trial judge’s duty to undertake in camera inspection of Children’s Services Division case records cannot be delegated to party or to party’s counsel. State ex rel Carlile v. Lewis, 310 Or 541, 800 P2d 786 (1990)

Trial court may not delegate its duty to review in camera Children’s Services Division file to district attorney prosecuting criminal case or to any person who lacks access to everything in file. State ex rel Dugan v. Tiktin, 313 Or 607, 837 P2d 959 (1992)

Source

Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023

REMOVE ADS