Disclosure to defendant
Source:
Section 135.815 — Disclosure to defendant, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors135.html.
Notes of Decisions
Where a police informant was neither a witness to nor a participant in the commission of the crime charged and did no more than provide facts which helped form basis of probable cause to arrest defendant, testimony of the informer was not significant in establishing guilt or innocence of defendant and state could refuse to disclose his identity. State v. Jessie, 17 Or App 368, 521 P2d 1323 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
Statements or memoranda of witnesses are subject to the disclosure requirements regardless of whether they ever actually came within the possession of the prosecutor. State v. Johnson, 26 Or App 651, 554 P2d 624 (1976)
Where report is created, it is subject to discovery as “statement” notwithstanding later incorporation into another report. State v. Johnson, 26 Or App 651, 554 P2d 624 (1976)
In criminal case, where state did not intend to offer items in evidence, and they were not obtained from and did not belong to defendant, such items were not discoverable by the defendant. State v. Koennecke, 274 Or 169, 545 P2d 127 (1976)
“Statement” means account of event or declaration of fact intended as complete expression of event or fact. State v. Bray, 31 Or App 47, 569 P2d 688 (1977)
Police officer’s notes are not “statements” and therefore are not subject to discovery. State v. Bray, 31 Or App 47, 569 P2d 688 (1977); State v. Warren, 31 Or App 1121, 572 P2d 341 (1977); State v. McKeen, 33 Or App 343, 576 P2d 804 (1978); State v. Armstrong, 71 Or App 467, 692 P2d 699 (1984); State v. Wrisley, 138 Or App 344, 909 P2d 877 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Notes and rough drafts used to prepare final report are not discoverable as statements where no significant difference exists between rough drafts and final report. State v. Jackson, 31 Or App 645, 571 P2d 523 (1977)
Where defendant did not request discovery in accordance with ORS 135.845 he could not claim prejudice by state’s alleged failure to comply with this section. State v. Dixon, 31 Or App 1027, 571 P2d 922 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Fact that defendant could have obtained copies of requested records on his own initiative did not relieve state of duty to disclose imposed by this section. State v. Carsner, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 339 (1977)
In trial of defendant charged with theft of tractor, it was improper for trial court to overrule, without making further factual inquiry, defendant’s objection that photographs of allegedly stolen tractor had not been disclosed to him prior to trial. State v. Warren, 31 Or App 1121, 572 P2d 341 (1977)
Notes and rough drafts differ from “statements” because notes and drafts are not intended to serve as communication to others. State v. Morrison, 33 Or App 9, 575 P2d 988 (1978)
Fragmentary notes and rough drafts are not subject to discovery as “statements.” State v. Morrison, 33 Or App 9, 575 P2d 988 (1978); State v. Wrisley, 138 Or App 344, 909 P2d 877 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Skull of victim was not discoverable by defendant under this section. State v. Oliverez, 34 Or App 417, 578 P2d 502 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
There was no violation of this section where traces of blood disappeared from knife used in robbery without explanation, but nothing in record established that any tests which prosecution would be required to disclose were performed upon knife. State v. Kilpatrick, 35 Or App 749, 582 P2d 480 (1978)
State’s failure to disclose existence of audio recording of defendant’s arrest was not improper where defendant did not meet burden of showing evidence was favorable and material to his guilt or innocence, and record did not indicate evidence was prejudicial. State v. Peters, 39 Or App 109, 591 P2d 761 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Breathalyzer ampule is not result of scientific test, experiment, or comparison subject to discovery, nor is breath within ampule “tangible object” subject to discovery. State v. Simpson, 40 Or App 83, 594 P2d 425 (1979)
Where defendant was charged with assaulting his ten-year-old son, and where caseworker testified that she had made notes of conversation with defendant’s wife shortly after conversation occurred, caseworker’s notes were written statements of witness. State v. Johns, 44 Or App 421, 606 P2d 640 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Police officer’s notes of defendant’s statements were discoverable as “memoranda of . . . oral statements made by defendant,” notwithstanding that copy of report prepared from notes had been given to defendant. State v. Fritz, 72 Or App 409, 695 P2d 972 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Arresting officer’s response to complaint of misconduct of arresting officer relating to circumstances of arrest of relator which relator sought in conjunction with criminal prosecution is subject to discovery under this section. State ex rel Wilson v. Thomas, 74 Or App 137, 700 P2d 1045 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
District attorney is not required to disclose capacity in which witness will testify nor content of testimony and was not required to inform defendant that witness would be testifying as expert. State v. Caulder, 75 Or App 457, 706 P2d 1007 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Where caseworker took notes during interviews with complainant and her mother, both of whom testified against defendant, charged with sexual abuse, notes of those conversations would be memoranda of oral statements by state’s witnesses and in control of district attorney. State v. Warren, 81 Or App 463, 726 P2d 387 (1986), aff’d 304 Or 428, 746 P2d 711 (1987)
Where defendant, charged with sodomy and sexual abuse, was denied access to Children’s Services Division file about victim and offense, no statute granted defendant direct access to entire CSD file though trial court should conduct in camera review of those portions of file as indicated in defendant’s discovery request, determine whether it contains evidence favorable to defense and turn such evidence over to defendant. State v. Warren, 304 Or 428, 746 P2d 711 (1987)
Where defendant sought disclosure of statements made by state’s prospective witnesses and requested in camera inspection by court of Children’s Services Division case records relating to victim, court erred when it failed to review files for exculpatory evidence. State v. Wattenbarger, 97 Or App 414, 776 P2d 1292 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
This section did not provide authority for trial court’s order directing district attorney to produce each of 53 children in custody of State of Oregon Children’s Services Division for pretrial interview by defense counsel. State ex rel O’Leary v. Lowe, 307 Or 395, 769 P2d 188 (1989)
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s discovery motion requesting state to produce and classify extensive information on all instances of use of particular model of intoxilyzer machine. State v. Andes, 104 Or App 719, 803 P2d 273 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where state provided defendant with photocopy of photo state intended to introduce into evidence, this section is not violated by inadvertent failure of state to provide defendant with copy of photo. State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 786 P2d 161 (1990)
Trial judge’s duty to undertake in camera inspection of Children’s Services Division case records cannot be delegated to party or to party’s counsel. State ex rel Carlile v. Lewis, 310 Or 541, 800 P2d 786 (1990)
Trial court did not err in denying motion to make genitalia of victims of sexual abuse available for inspection since district attorney had no custodial relationship with victims that gave him authority to compel examination. State v. Gallup, 108 Or App 508, 816 P2d 669 (1991)
Prosecutor was required to disclose portions of Children’s Services Division files containing written memoranda of statements of witnesses state intended to call, even though files were confidential under [former] ORS 418.770. State v. Wood, 112 Or App 61, 827 P2d 924 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Because state did not call defendant’s wife or 911 dispatcher and no evidence indicates state intended to call wife or dispatcher, recorded conversation between wife and 911 dispatcher was not subject to discovery. State v. Norman, 114 Or App 395, 835 P2d 146 (1992)
Inspection of police personnel file by trial court in camerawas appropriate to determine whether file contained exculpatory material. State v. Leslie, 119 Or App 249, 850 P2d 1135 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where evidence was not inherently exculpatory and no direct link existed between evidence and defendant’s involvement in crime, defendant failed to prove that undisclosed evidence was material and favorable to defense. State v. Baker, 126 Or App 255, 867 P2d 1392 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
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)
Police failure to include relevant information in notes or reports is not imputable to district attorney as failure to disclose information. State v. Divito, 330 Or 319, 5 P3d 1103 (2000)
State does not have control over documents if it cannot obtain them without judicial assistance. State v. Bray, 363 Or 226, 422 P3d 250 (2018)
Up to date