ORS 138.615
Disclosure of witness information


In any proceeding for post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title), a party shall provide to the other party, upon written request of the other party or an order of the court, the identity of and, except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the contact information for any person who is a potential witness, whether the person may be called to testify at the proceeding or provide sworn written testimony.


Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the disclosure required by subsection (1) of this section concerning any witness that a party may use at the proceeding to present evidence under ORS 40.410 (Rule 702. Testimony by experts), 40.415 (Rule 703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts) or 40.420 (Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue) must be accompanied by a written report that is prepared and signed by the witness. The report must contain:


A complete statement of all opinions the witness intends to assert as an expert witness; and


The data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions.


The disclosures required by subsections (1) and (2) of this section must be made according to timelines established by the court in each case.


Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, and after taking into account the reason, if any, for the breach and the prejudice, if any, to the other party, the court may grant a continuance, refuse to permit a witness not properly disclosed from testifying, refuse to receive in evidence the material not disclosed, impose costs incurred by the other party as a result of the breach or enter such other order as the court considers appropriate.


Unless ordered by the court, the defendant shall not disclose to the petitioner any personal identifiers, as defined in ORS 135.815 (Disclosure to defendant), of the victim.


Upon the request of either party, the court may enter a protective order as provided in ORS 135.873 (Protective orders). [2013 c.226 §2]
§§ 138.510 to 138.680

Notes of Decisions

Any person who is convicted of a crime may seek relief under this section, whether or not he is in custody, regardless of whether his conviction is for a felony or misdemeanor. Morasch v. State, 261 Or 299, 493 P2d 1364 (1972)

Habeas corpus is a proper method of questioning the constitutionality of treatment accorded prisoners. Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 545 P2d 861 (1976)

These sections afforded plain, speedy and adequate remedy in lower courts and state Supreme Court would not exercise original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F2d 233 (1981)

Post-conviction relief is not suspension of writ of habeas corpus; it provides different procedure but retains all necessary substantive and procedural advantages of the writ. Atkeson v. Cupp, 68 Or App 196, 680 P2d 772 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Post-conviction relief under these sections is available to those convicted of DUII Class A traffic infractions to remedy constitutional violations. Evers v. State, 69 Or App 450, 685 P2d 1024 (1984)

Availability of post-conviction relief to persons convicted under state law but not to those convicted under municipal law does not violate Article I, section 20, or equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment, because persons convicted under municipal law do not constitute true class, and there is no discriminatory application of law. Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 761 P2d 502 (1988)

Granting of delayed appeal authorized where necessary to rectify substantial denial of constitutional rights. State v. Macy, 316 Or 335, 851 P2d 579 (1993)

Federal constitutional principle requiring that facts that increase penalty for crime beyond statutory maximum be submitted to jury does not apply retroactively to afford post-conviction relief. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

State will retroactively apply new federal rule regarding constitutionality only if rule places certain kinds of conduct beyond proscription or if procedural rule affects fundamental fairness required for accurate conviction. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

Law Review Citations

68 OLR 269 (1989)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021