ORS 138.625
Victim testimony

  • contact with victim


A petitioner in a post-conviction relief proceeding may not compel a victim to testify, either by deposition, hearing or otherwise, unless the petitioner moves for an order of the court allowing a subpoena.


A copy of the motion for a subpoena under this section must be served on the counsel for the defendant.


The court may not grant an order allowing a subpoena under this section unless the petitioner can demonstrate good cause by showing that:


The victim’s testimony is material to the post-conviction relief proceeding;


The testimony is favorable to the petitioner; and


The testimony was not introduced at trial.


If the court grants an order allowing a subpoena under this section, upon a request by the victim for no personal contact between the parties, the court may allow the victim to appear by telephone or other communication device approved by the court.


If contacted by the petitioner or any agent of the petitioner, the victim must be clearly informed by the petitioner or other contacting agent, either in person or in writing, of the identity and capacity of the person contacting the victim, that the victim does not have to talk to the petitioner’s attorney, or other agents of the petitioner, or provide other discovery unless the victim wishes, and that the victim may have a district attorney, assistant attorney general or other attorney or advocate present during any interview or other contact.


As used in this section, “victim” has the meaning given that term in ORS 135.970 (Information required when victim contacted by defense). [2007 c.470 §1; 2013 c.144 §2; 2019 c.399 §3]
Note: 138.625 (Victim testimony) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 138 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

In post-conviction proceeding, victim may be subpoenaed only if victim possesses information that is sufficiently likely to affect post-conviction determination to extent that information could undermine confidence in determination if court were to proceed without victim's testimony. Clark v. Nooth, 284 Or App 762, 395 P3d 32 (2017), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 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