Criminal Trials

ORS 136.619
Immunity of witness compelled to testify

(1)

A witness who, in compliance with a court order issued under ORS 33.085 (Compelling testimony of witness) or 136.617 (Motion to compel witness who may be incriminated to testify), testifies or produces evidence that the witness would have been privileged to withhold but for the court order, may be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any matter about which the witness testified or produced evidence unless the prosecution, penalty or forfeiture is prohibited by section 12, Article I of the Oregon Constitution. The testimony of the witness or evidence produced or information derived from the testimony or evidence may not be used against the witness in any criminal prosecution. However, the witness may nevertheless be prosecuted or subjected to penalty for any perjury, false swearing or contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing, or failing to produce, evidence in accordance with the order. If a person refuses to testify after being ordered to testify as provided in this section, the person shall be subject to penalty for contempt of court for failure to comply with the order.

(2)

Subsection (1) of this section shall not prevent the use of post-judgment collection procedures, including but not limited to wage withholding, income withholding, benefit withholding, assignment, garnishment or execution, based on matters about which a defendant testifies or produces evidence in compliance with a court order issued under ORS 136.617 (Motion to compel witness who may be incriminated to testify) in any proceeding for the imposition of remedial or punitive sanctions for contempt. [Formerly 139.200; 1981 c.882 §2; 1985 c.709 §1; 1991 c.724 §25b; 1997 c.313 §22]

Notes of Decisions

Under Oregon Constitution, only transactional immunity is permissible and lesser statutory immunity of use and derivative use fails to meet requirements of Constitution. State v. Soriano, 298 Or 392, 693 P2d 26 (1984)

On remand, by testifying defendant accepted use and derivative use immunity offered by former version of this section and court may not now transform immunity to transactional immunity offered under current version of this section. State v. White, 96 Or App 713, 773 P2d 824 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 573-577 (1972)

Source

Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023

REMOVE ADS