Evidence Code
Rule 901. Requirement of authentication or identification
(Rule 901)
See also annotations under ORS 42.060 and 42.070 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Authentication is receipt of conditionally relevant evidence, not preliminary determination of admissibility. State v. Park, 140 Or App 507, 916 P2d 334 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
19 WLR 428 (1983)
(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.