2017 ORS 136.330¹
Trial procedure
  • polling jurors in writing

(1) ORS 10.100 (View of premises by jury) and ORCP 58 B, C and D and 59 B through F and G(1), (3), (4) and (5), apply to and regulate the conduct of the trial of criminal actions. The jury in a criminal action may, in the discretion of the court, be polled in writing. If the jury is polled in writing, the written results shall be sealed and placed in the court record.

(2) ORCP 59 H applies to and regulates exceptions in criminal actions. [Amended by 1959 c.558 §31; 1979 c.284 §113; 1985 c.703 §27]

Notes of Decisions

A mo­tion for mistrial is addressed to the sound discre­tion of the trial court, and its exercise will not be upset except for a clear abuse. State v. Poole, 11 Or App 55, 500 P2d 726 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

Where the trial judge clearly and emphatically instructed the jury to disregard an improper ques­tion and give a further cau­tionary instruc­tion at the end of the trial he did not abuse his discre­tion in denying a mo­tion for a mistrial. State v. Poole, 11 Or App 55, 500 P2d 726 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

Provisions of [former] ORS 17.320 were applicable in crim­i­nal ac­tion. State v. Greene, 36 Or App 281, 583 P2d 1171 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant ap­peals con­vic­­tion for driving under influence of intoxicants and assigns error to trial court’s admission of state­ments made to police, failure to take judicial notice of certain facts and instruc­tion to jury, trial court did not err in admitting state­ments that defendant had driven earlier that evening, committed harmless error in failure to take notice that Eskalith comes in various size capsules and since record relating to jury instruc­tion was not preserved, Appeals Court unable to review whether trial court sufficiently apprised jury of grounds for excep­tion. State v. Kennedy, 95 Or App 663, 771 P2d 281 (1989)

Considera­tions of orderly pro­ce­dure and fairness require defendant who desires lesser included jury instruc­tion to request it before beginning of closing argu­ments. State v. Radford, 101 Or App 665, 793 P2d 324 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court’s error in failing to instruct jury on causal connec­tion between mur­der and victim’s status as witness in crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing was apparent error of law appearing on face of record, and justified court’s considera­tion despite de­fense counsel’s failure to preserve error at trial or to assign error on ap­peal. State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 800 P2d 259 (1990)

Instruc­tion that jury could consider certain evidence was permissible where instruc­tion did not suggest that jury draw particular inference from evidence. State v. Blanchard, 165 Or App 127, 995 P2d 1200 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

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.