Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses
Source:
Section 40.385 — Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors040.html.
See also annotations under ORS 45.510 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 45.510)
When one party moves to exclude witnesses and the other party voices no objection the motion should always be granted. State v. Bishop, 7 Or App 558, 492 P2d 509 (1971)
When the motion is opposed, the witnesses should be excluded unless there are sufficient reasons relevant to the purpose of the trial for not excluding witnesses. State v. Bishop, 7 Or App 558, 492 P2d 509 (1971)
Defendant is not prejudiced by failure to exclude witness if testimony of witness is totally unrelated to testimony of prior witnesses. State v. Roberts, 47 Or App 323, 614 P2d 139 (1980)
Under Evidence Code
A violation of an exclusion order is not, of itself, sufficient to disqualify a defense witness in a criminal case and the trial court cannot exclude the testimony based upon this ground alone. State v. Burdge, 295 Or 1, 664 P2d 1076 (1983)
Where overlapping testimony of two witnesses did not concern contested issues, failure to exclude witnesses was harmless error. State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337, 674 P2d 66 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Failure to make motion until after testimony has started is not good cause for denying motion. State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337, 674 P2d 66 (1984), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Larson, 139 Or App 294, 911 P2d 953 (1996), aff’d 325 Or 15, 933 P2d 958 (1997)
Refusal to strike testimony of defendant’s experts as sanction for defendant’s revealing daily transcripts to experts in violation of order excluding witnesses was within court’s discretion. Siegfried v. Pacific Northwest Development Corp., 102 Or App 57, 793 P2d 330 (1990)
Allowing investigating officer to remain in courtroom after trial court determined that state had established that officer’s presence was essential to prosecution under this section did not violate defendant’s right to cross-examine and to confront witness against him under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Alexander, 105 Or App 566, 805 P2d 743 (1991)
Plaintiff who is unable to comprehend, meaningfully participate in proceedings, or assist lawyer in presentation of case may be excluded from liability portion of bifurcated trial if court determines plaintiff’s presence would be unfairly prejudicial. Bremner v. Charles, 312 Or 274, 821 P2d 1080 (1991)
Assertion that fiance of murder victim lived with victim did not alone qualify fiance as victim of criminal case not subject to exclusion. State v. Stookey, 119 Or App 487, 850 P2d 1167 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
City police officer who investigates and files state criminal charge is equivalent of state officer for purpose of exemption from exclusion. State v. Cooper, 319 Or 162, 874 P2d 822 (1994); 130 Or App 209, 880 P2d 514 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Erroneous denial of motion does not create presumption of prejudice to defendant upon judicial review. State v. Larson, 139 Or App 294, 911 P2d 953 (1996), aff’d 325 Or 15, 933 P2d 958 (1997)
Corporation is entitled to only one corporate representative at pretrial deposition of corporate witnesses. Washington County Assessor v. West Beaverton Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc., 18 OTR 226 (2005)
Corporation may not designate different corporate representative for separate depositions of corporate witnesses. Washington County Assessor v. West Beaverton Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc., 18 OTR 226 (2005)
Exclusion of corporate witness from deposition of corporate representative requires that deposing party comply with court rules related to filing of protective order. Washington County Assessor v. West Beaverton Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc., 18 OTR 226 (2005)
Up to date