ORS 135.845¹
Time of disclosure

(1) The obligations to disclose shall be performed as soon as practicable following the filing of an indictment or information in the circuit court or the filing of a complaint or information charging a misdemeanor or violation of a city ordinance. The court may supervise the exercise of discovery to the extent necessary to insure that it proceeds properly and expeditiously.

(2) If, after complying with the provisions of ORS 135.805 (Applicability) to 135.873 (Protective orders) and 135.970 (Information required when victim contacted by defense), a party finds, either before or during trial, additional material or information which is subject to or covered by these provisions, the party must promptly notify the other party of the additional material or information. [1973 c.836 §217; 1999 c.304 §4]

Notes of Decisions

The duty to disclose may arise prior to the filing of an indict­ment. State v. Johnson, 26 Or App 651, 554 P2d 624 (1976)

Where defendant did not request discovery in accordance with this sec­tion he could not claim prejudice as result of state’s alleged failure to comply with discovery pursuant to ORS 135.815 (Disclosure to defendant). State v. Dixon, 31 Or App 1027, 571 P2d 922 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Notwithstanding that defendant sought discovery of ma­te­ri­al from district attorney more than five weeks prior to trial, ma­te­ri­als delivered two days before trial were furnished as “soon as practicable” where delay was not caused by district attorney’s office. State v. Carsner, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 339 (1977)

Where, without notifying de­fense as re­quired by this sec­tion, pros­e­cu­­tion used sexual abuse victim’s dress to impeach defendant, new trial was re­quired. State v. Dickerson, 36 Or App 479, 584 P2d 787 (1978)

Since this sec­tion does not require defendant to request discovery ma­te­ri­al at any particular time when pros­e­cu­­tion fails to comply with its discovery obliga­tions and where defendant’s use of evidence re­quired no examina­tion prior to trial, discovery mo­tion made during trial was timely. State v. Cle­ments, 52 Or App 309, 628 P2d 433 (1981)

It was proper for trial court to order usable copy of videotape be provided defendant, at her expense, where state pre­vi­ously had allowed inspec­tion of videotape in police of­fi­cer’s presence. State v. Kull, 298 Or 38, 688 P2d 1327 (1984)

Absent showing that party intended to avoid compliance, no discovery viola­tion occurs until party finds addi­tional in­for­ma­­tion or ma­te­ri­al and fails to promptly notify other party. State v. Dillard, 100 Or App 645, 787 P2d 1307 (1990); State v. Beaty, 127 Or App 448, 873 P2d 385 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

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’d286 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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors135.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information