2017 ORS 40.125¹
Rule 309. Presumptions in criminal proceedings

(1) The judge is not authorized to direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused.

(2) When the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negates a defense, the judge may submit the question of guilt or the existence of the presumed fact to the jury only if:

(a) A reasonable juror on the evidence as a whole could find that the facts giving rise to the presumed fact have been established beyond a reasonable doubt; and

(b) The presumed fact follows more likely than not from the facts giving rise to the presumed fact. [1981 c.892 §18]

(Rule 309)

Notes of Decisions

An instruc­tion that could give the jury impression that, in absence of evidence from defendant an ele­ment of the charge is to be presumed from proof of different facts, violates this rule because it does not make clear to the jury that finding the presumed fact is merely an inference that it is permitted to draw. State v. Nossaman, 63 Or App 789, 666 P2d 1351 (1983)

Jury instruc­tion requiring inference in pros­e­cu­­tion for negotiating bad check that if defendant did not make good on check within ten days after receiving notice of refusal that he had knowledge at time check was drawn that it would be dishonored was improper instruc­tion permitting jury to make presump­tion as to ele­ment of crime and was reversible error. State v. Short, 88 Or App 567, 746 P2d 742 (1987)

Trial court may not instruct jury that it may infer firearm was loaded from fact that defendant pointed firearm at an­oth­er. State v. Campbell, 100 Or App 153, 785 P2d 370 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff’d State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading “Under former similar statute” if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 40—Evidence Code, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors040.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­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.