Evidence Code

ORS 40.550
Rule 1001. Definitions for ORS 40.550 to 40.585

As used in ORS 40.550 (Rule 1001. Definitions for ORS 40.550 to 40.585) to 40.585 (Rule 1008. Functions of court and jury), unless the context requires otherwise:


“Duplicate” means a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, by mechanical or electronic re-recording, by chemical reproduction, by optical imaging or by other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduce the original, including reproduction by facsimile machines if the reproduction is identified as a facsimile and printed on nonthermal paper.


“Original” of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original.”


“Photographs” includes still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes and motion pictures.


“Writings” and “recordings” mean letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, optical imaging, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation. [1981 c.892 §71; 1991 c.857 §1; 1995 c.760 §1]

(Rule 1001)

See annotations under ORS 41.060 in permanent edition.

§§ 40.550 to 40.585

Notes of Decisions

Where testimony by appellant and appellant's son clearly and convincingly establishes that appellant had been involuntarily committed twice in past three years, original commitment order is not required by "best evidence rule." State v. Brungard, 101 Or App 67, 789 P2d 683 (1990), as modified by 102 Or App 509, 789 P2d 683 (1990)

Chapter 40


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.


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021