Evidence Code
Rule 106. When part of transaction proved, whole admissible
(Rule 106)
See also annotations under ORS 41.880 in permanent edition.
Law Review Citations
46 WLR 539 (2010)
Completed Citations (For ORS 41.880 In Permanent Edition)
State v. Williams, 6 Or App 189, 487 P2d 100 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
(Generally)
Notes of Decisions
General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in proceeding governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)
Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)
Where state law completely precludes reliable, materially exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitution. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff'd State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)
Oregon Evidence Code articulates minimum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identification evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)
Law Review Citations
59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)
Evidence Code
Annotations are listed under the heading "Under former similar statute" if they predate the adoption of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.