2007 ORS 135.835¹
Disclosure to the state

Except as otherwise provided in ORS 135.855 (Material and information not subject to discovery) and 135.873 (Protective orders), the defense shall disclose to the district attorney the following material and information within the possession or control of the defense:

(1) The names and addresses of persons, including the defendant, whom the defense intends to call as witnesses at the trial, together with relevant written or recorded statements or memoranda of any oral statements of such persons other than the defendant.

(2) Any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons, that the defense intends to offer in evidence at the trial.

(3) Any books, papers, documents, photographs or tangible objects that the defense intends to offer in evidence at the trial. [1973 c.836 §216; 1999 c.304 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Finding that discovery viola­tion prejudiced other side is not prerequisite to refusal to allow witness to testify. State v. Wolfe, 21 Or App 717, 536 P2d 555 (1975), aff'd 273 Or 518, 542 P2d 482 (1975)

Under this sec­tion, if de­fense counsel, though not certain, can "reasonably predict" use of certain exhibits to impeach state's witness, timely discovery must be given to prosecutor, at risk of discre­tionary suppression. State v. Young, 94 Or App 683, 767 P2d 90 (1989)

Defense counsel's instruc­tion to witnesses to not discuss case with prosecutor out of de­fense counsel's presence violated this sec­tion. State v. Ben, 310 Or 309, 798 P2d 650 (1990)

Where four days before trial, in viola­tion of time­liness require­ments of this sec­tion, defendant's attorney sent state notice he intended to call expert to challenge accuracy of Intoxilyzer and moved for continuance to remedy any prejudice to state, trial court erred in denying mo­tion for continuance and excluding expert testimony on basis it would encourage poor practice by de­fense bar; speculative future harm to state or judicial system was not sufficient to allow witness exclusion. State v. Girard, 113 Or App 238, 832 P2d 463 (1992)

Written state­ments are "relevant" and subject to disclosure only if pertaining to specific testimony to be given by particular witness being called. State v. Divito, 152 Or App 672, 955 P2d 327 (1998), aff'd on other grounds, 330 Or 319, 5 P3d 1103 (2000)

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 282 (1982)

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'd 286 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/­135.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­135ano.­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.