2017 ORS 135.873¹
Protective orders

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Local government” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.116 (“Local government” and “local service district” defined).

(b) “Sexual offense” includes but is not limited to a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005 (Definitions for ORS 163A.005 to 163A.235).

(c) “State government” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.111 (“State government” defined).

(d) “Victim” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.007 (“Victim” defined).

(2) Upon a showing of good cause, the court may at any time order that specified disclosures be denied, restricted or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate.

(3) Upon request of any party, the court may permit a showing of good cause for denial or regulation of disclosures, or portion of such showing, to be made in camera. A record shall be made of such proceedings.

(4) If the court enters an order granting relief following a showing in camera, the entire record of the showing shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. Except for information or materials subject to an order that has been entered under subsection (5) or (6) of this section, the trial court, in its discretion, may, after the case has been concluded, unseal matters previously sealed.

(5) Upon the request of a district attorney or the victim, the court shall enter a protective order prohibiting any party to or attorney in, or the agent of a party to or attorney in, criminal proceedings involving a sexual offense, an offense involving the visual or audio recording of sexual conduct by a child or invasion of personal privacy under ORS 163.700 (Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree) or 163.701 (Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree) from copying or disseminating any information of a sexually explicit nature including, but not limited to, photographs depicting a person in a state of nudity, photographs of human genitalia, any information of the prior sexual history of the victim and any visual or audio recording of the sexual victimization.

(6) Upon the request of a district attorney or the victim, unless the court finds good cause to do otherwise, the court shall enter a protective order prohibiting any party to or attorney in, or the agent of a party to or attorney in, criminal proceedings involving a sexual offense, an offense involving the visual or audio recording of sexual conduct by a child or invasion of personal privacy under ORS 163.700 (Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree) or 163.701 (Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree) from copying or disseminating a visual or audio recording of the victim describing the victim’s sexual victimization.

(7) Notwithstanding a protective order entered under subsection (5) or (6) of this section, information or materials described in subsections (5) and (6) may be copied or disseminated for the purpose of:

(a) Providing discovery;

(b) Submitting evidence to a grand jury, a court, an agency of state government, a local government or a federal agency for use in judicial or administrative proceedings;

(c) Having the information or materials examined by an expert witness for the court, the state or any party;

(d) Providing copies of the information or materials to the parties’ attorneys or agents; or

(e) Sharing the information or materials with an agency of state government for use in carrying out duties imposed on the agency by statute.

(8) Upon the request of the victim, the court may order that the victim be provided with a copy of information or materials described in subsections (5) and (6) of this section. [1973 c.836 §220; 2005 c.531 §1; 2009 c.713 §10; 2015 c.645 §6]

Notes of Decisions

It was error to issue protective order where state affidavit failed to es­tab­lish re­quired “good cause” for doing so but error was harmless because there is little likelihood that disclosure of address of witnesses would have affected result of trial. State v. Pettit, 66 Or App 575, 675 P2d 183 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court had authority upon defendant’s request to order district attorney’s file to be copied and sealed when defendant showed good cause for preserving evidence of what was in file at that time. State v. Crenshaw, 307 Or 160, 764 P2d 1372 (1988)

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 may not delegate its duty to review in camera Children’s Services Division file to district attorney prosecuting crim­i­nal case or to any per­son who lacks access to everything in file. State ex rel Dugan v. Tiktin, 313 Or 607, 837 P2d 959 (1992)

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.