Evidence Code

ORS 40.260
Rule 506. Member of clergy-penitent privilege

(1)

As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:

(a)

“Confidential communication” means a communication made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.

(b)

“Member of the clergy” means a minister of any church, religious denomination or organization or accredited Christian Science practitioner who in the course of the discipline or practice of that church, denomination or organization is authorized or accustomed to hearing confidential communications and, under the discipline or tenets of that church, denomination or organization, has a duty to keep such communications secret.

(2)

A member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member’s professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication.

(3)

Even though the person who made the communication has given consent to the disclosure, a member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member in the member’s professional character if, under the discipline or tenets of the member’s church, denomination or organization, the member has an absolute duty to keep the communication confidential. [1981 c.892 §35; 1999 c.7 §1]

(Rule 506)

Notes of Decisions

Trial court committed harmful error in admitting defendant's confession to Mormon minister in trial for first degree rape, because communication was protected under clergy-penitent privilege. State v. Cox, 87 Or App 443, 742 P2d 694 (1987)

Law Review Citations

76 OLR 173 (1997); 85 OLR 481 (2006)

Chapter 40

(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)

Chapter 40

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.

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS