2015 ORS 135.857¹
Disclosure to victim
  • conditions

(1) In any criminal prosecution arising from an automobile collision in which the defendant is alleged to have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the district attorney prosecuting the action shall make available, upon request, to the victim or victims and to their attorney, or to the survivors of the victim or victims and to their attorney, all reports and information disclosed to the defendant pursuant to ORS 135.805 (Applicability) to 135.873 (Protective orders). The reports and information shall be made available at the same time as it is disclosed to the defendant or as soon thereafter as may be practicable after a request is received. The district attorney may impose such conditions as may be reasonable and necessary to prevent the release of the reports and information from interfering with the trial of the defendant. The district attorney may apply to the court for an order requiring any person receiving such reports and information to comply with the conditions of release.

(2) For the purpose of this section:

(a) "District attorney" has that meaning given in ORS 131.005 (General definitions).

(b) "Drug" has that meaning given in ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980). [1991 c.229 §2]

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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.