Criminal Trials

ORS 136.330
Trial procedure

  • polling jurors in writing


ORS 10.100 (View of premises by jury) and ORCP 58 B, C and D and 59 B through F and G(1), (3), (4) and (5), apply to and regulate the conduct of the trial of criminal actions. The jury in a criminal action may, in the discretion of the court, be polled in writing. If the jury is polled in writing, the written results shall be sealed and placed in the court record.


ORCP 59 H applies to and regulates exceptions in criminal actions. [Amended by 1959 c.558 §31; 1979 c.284 §113; 1985 c.703 §27]

Notes of Decisions

A motion for mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its exercise will not be upset except for a clear abuse. State v. Poole, 11 Or App 55, 500 P2d 726 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

Where the trial judge clearly and emphatically instructed the jury to disregard an improper question and give a further cautionary instruction at the end of the trial he did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion for a mistrial. State v. Poole, 11 Or App 55, 500 P2d 726 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

Provisions of [former] ORS 17.320 were applicable in criminal action. State v. Greene, 36 Or App 281, 583 P2d 1171 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant appeals conviction for driving under influence of intoxicants and assigns error to trial court’s admission of statements made to police, failure to take judicial notice of certain facts and instruction to jury, trial court did not err in admitting statements that defendant had driven earlier that evening, committed harmless error in failure to take notice that Eskalith comes in various size capsules and since record relating to jury instruction was not preserved, Appeals Court unable to review whether trial court sufficiently apprised jury of grounds for exception. State v. Kennedy, 95 Or App 663, 771 P2d 281 (1989)

Considerations of orderly procedure and fairness require defendant who desires lesser included jury instruction to request it before beginning of closing arguments. State v. Radford, 101 Or App 665, 793 P2d 324 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court’s error in failing to instruct jury on causal connection between murder and victim’s status as witness in criminal proceeding was apparent error of law appearing on face of record, and justified court’s consideration despite defense counsel’s failure to preserve error at trial or to assign error on appeal. State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 800 P2d 259 (1990)

Instruction that jury could consider certain evidence was permissible where instruction did not suggest that jury draw particular inference from evidence. State v. Blanchard, 165 Or App 127, 995 P2d 1200 (2000), Sup Ct review denied


Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023