2017 ORS 136.060¹
Jointly charged defendants to be tried jointly
  • exception

(1) Jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the court concludes before trial that it is clearly inappropriate to do so and orders that a defendant be tried separately. In reaching its conclusion the court shall strongly consider the victim’s interest in a joint trial.

(2) In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court may order the prosecution to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by any defendant that the prosecution intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. [Amended by 1983 c.705 §1; 1987 c.2 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Trial court’s denial of defendant’s mo­tion to sever case from that of codefendant can be outside court’s discre­tion only when reason for granting mo­tion is compelling. State v. Tyson, 72 Or App 140, 694 P2d 1003 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where this sec­tion authorizing joint trials does not provide for severance on showing of prejudice, codefendant’s confession was edited to omit any reference to defendant and jury was instructed not to consider confession against defendant, joint trial and introduc­tion of codefendant’s confession did not violate applicable statute. State v. Umphrey, 100 Or App 433, 786 P2d 1279 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Redacted out-of-court state­ment of codefendant did not make joint trial inappropriate where state­ment implicated un­iden­ti­fied sec­ond perpetrator and identity of defendant as sec­ond perpetrator was es­tab­lished through other testimony. State v. Taylor, 125 Or App 636, 866 P2d 504 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Codefendants’ asser­tion of mutually exclusive de­fenses does not require severance. State v. Turner, 153 Or App 66, 956 P2d 215 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

“Clearly inappropriate” standard authorizes court to permit separate trial for jointly charged defendants when in­for­ma­­tion available to trial court in advance of trial is such that court can reasonably predict joint trial would lead to error resulting in mistrial or later reversal by appellate court, and evidence that one defendant held fervent antigovern­ment senti­ments and harbored motive to commit crime of bank robbery did not rise to “clearly inappropriate” standard. State v. Turnidge (S059155), 359 Or 364, 374 P3d 853 (2016)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 136—Criminal Trials, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors136.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 136, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano136.­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.