ORS 132.580¹
Names of grand jury witnesses on indictment
  • effect of failure to include
  • procedure to remedy failure

(1) When an indictment is found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury that returned the indictment, either by testimony in the presence of the grand jury, by affidavit, by means of simultaneous television transmission under ORS 132.320 (Consideration of evidence) (5) or by telephone under ORS 132.320 (Consideration of evidence) (7), and the names of those whose reports were received by such grand jury pursuant to ORS 132.320 (Consideration of evidence) (2) must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is filed. The indorsement shall show whether the witness gave testimony before the grand jury in person, by affidavit, by means of simultaneous television transmission or by telephone or filed a report.

(2) A witness examined before the grand jury whose name is not indorsed on the indictment shall not be permitted to testify at trial without the consent of the defendant, unless the court finds that:

(a) The name of the witness was omitted from the indictment by inadvertence;

(b) The name of the witness was furnished to the defendant by the state at least 10 days before trial; and

(c) The defendant will not be prejudiced by the omission. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §59; 1995 c.126 §2; 2003 c.645 §8]

Notes of Decisions

When the first indict­ment was dismissed and a sec­ond found, this sec­tion does not require naming witnesses before the first grand jury. State v. Fennell, 7 Or App 256, 489 P2d 964 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Hospital records are not reports and therefore need not be noted on indict­ment. State v. Gonzalez, 120 Or App 249, 852 P2d 851 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

2 EL 230-274 (1971)

Chapter 132

Notes of Decisions

A circuit court has no authority to order the wholesale recorda­tion and preserva­tion of grand jury testimony under either statutory or common law. State ex rel Johnson v. Roth, 276 Or 883, 557 P2d 230 (1976)

Where defendant was found in contempt for failure to comply with grand jury sub­poe­na, circuit court had no authority to examine grand jury testimony or discuss its content for the sole purpose of determining the sen­tence to impose. State v. Applegate, 41 Or App 287, 597 P2d 1290 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 132—Grand Jury, Indictments and Other Accusatory Instruments, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors132.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 132, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­132ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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