Notes of Decisions
Finding that discovery violation prejudiced other side is not prerequisite to refusal to allow witness to testify. State v. Wolfe, 21 Or App 717, 536 P2d 555 (1975), aff'd 273 Or 518, 542 P2d 482 (1975)
Under this section, if defense counsel, though not certain, can "reasonably predict" use of certain exhibits to impeach state's witness, timely discovery must be given to prosecutor, at risk of discretionary suppression. State v. Young, 94 Or App 683, 767 P2d 90 (1989)
Defense counsel's instruction to witnesses to not discuss case with prosecutor out of defense counsel's presence violated this section. State v. Ben, 310 Or 309, 798 P2d 650 (1990)
Where four days before trial, in violation of timeliness requirements of this section, defendant's attorney sent state notice he intended to call expert to challenge accuracy of Intoxilyzer and moved for continuance to remedy any prejudice to state, trial court erred in denying motion for continuance and excluding expert testimony on basis it would encourage poor practice by defense bar; speculative future harm to state or judicial system was not sufficient to allow witness exclusion. State v. Girard, 113 Or App 238, 832 P2d 463 (1992)
Written statements are "relevant" and subject to disclosure only if pertaining to specific testimony to be given by particular witness being called. State v. Divito, 152 Or App 672, 955 P2d 327 (1998), aff'd on other grounds, 330 Or 319, 5 P3d 1103 (2000)
Law Review Citations
18 WLR 282 (1982)
See also annotations under ORS 133.755 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Copy of letter sent to district court and also to district attorney's office, entering not guilty plea and stating "by copy of this letter I am demanding reciprocal discovery from the District Attorney's office," was insufficient to make formal demand for disclosure of classes of information available under these sections. State v. Sheppard, 32 Or App 345, 573 P2d 1276 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Specifications, operating instructions and repair and maintenance records for radar device with which arresting officer measured defendant's speed were not discoverable under these sections. State v. Spada, 33 Or App 257, 576 P2d 33 (1978), aff'd 286 Or 305, 594 P2d 815 (1979)
These sections afford defendant opportunity to obtain specific and detailed information about state's theory of case and evidence it intends to produce at trial, and purposes that indictments and complaints are designed to serve in criminal cases are now served as well or better by discovery. State v. Strandquist, 57 Or App 404, 644 P2d 658 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Nothing in discovery statutes prevents state from initiating grand jury investigation of possible criminal activities by potential defense witnesses. State v. Huffman, 65 Or App 594, 672 P2d 1351 (1983)
Where defendant appeals conviction and trial court precluded defense witness because of alleged discovery violation and state being prejudiced, trial court obligated to explore other alternatives to remedy prejudice before precluding witness from testifying. State v. Gill, 96 Or App 358, 772 P2d 957 (1989)
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 354-369 (1972); 10 WLJ 145-166 (1974); 18 WLR 279 (1982)
