Criminal Trials

ORS 136.060
Jointly charged defendants to be tried jointly

  • exception


Jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so and orders that a defendant be tried separately. In reaching its conclusion the court shall strongly consider the victim’s interest in a joint trial.


In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court may order the prosecution to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by any defendant that the prosecution intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. [Amended by 1983 c.705 §1; 1987 c.2 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to sever case from that of codefendant can be outside court’s discretion only when reason for granting motion is compelling. State v. Tyson, 72 Or App 140, 694 P2d 1003 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where this section authorizing joint trials does not provide for severance on showing of prejudice, codefendant’s confession was edited to omit any reference to defendant and jury was instructed not to consider confession against defendant, joint trial and introduction of codefendant’s confession did not violate applicable statute. State v. Umphrey, 100 Or App 433, 786 P2d 1279 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Redacted out-of-court statement of codefendant did not make joint trial inappropriate where statement implicated unidentified second perpetrator and identity of defendant as second perpetrator was established through other testimony. State v. Taylor, 125 Or App 636, 866 P2d 504 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Codefendants’ assertion of mutually exclusive defenses does not require severance. State v. Turner, 153 Or App 66, 956 P2d 215 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

“Clearly inappropriate” standard authorizes court to permit separate trial for jointly charged defendants when information available to trial court in advance of trial is such that court can reasonably predict joint trial would lead to error resulting in mistrial or later reversal by appellate court, and evidence that one defendant held fervent antigovernment sentiments and harbored motive to commit crime of bank robbery did not rise to “clearly inappropriate” standard. State v. Turnidge (S059155), 359 Or 364, 374 P3d 853 (2016)


Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023