2015 ORS 40.175¹
Rule 405. Methods of proving character

(1) In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.

(2)(a) In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is admissible under ORS 40.170 (Rule 404. Character evidence) (1), proof may also be made of specific instances of the conduct of the person.

(b) When evidence is admissible under ORS 40.170 (Rule 404. Character evidence) (3) or (4), proof may be made of specific instances of the conduct of the person. [1981 c.892 §25; 1997 c.313 §34]

(Rule 405)

Notes of Decisions

Defendant, charged with first de­gree assault, who testified concerning earlier alterca­tions with victim to show victim's aggressiveness did not, by testimony of specific instance of peaceful con­duct, put his character for peacefulness in issue. State v. Peacock, 75 Or App 217, 706 P2d 982 (1985)

Ques­tion "Is there any particular kind of lie which (the victim) has a reputa­tion for telling?" is func­tional equivalent of asking witness to relate specific instances of con­duct as proof of character trait of victim for untruthfulness and is improper under this rule. State v. Marshall, 312 Or 367, 823 P2d 961 (1991)

On cross-examina­tion, reference to specific instance of con­duct must be based on reliable evidence but need not be based on admissible evidence. In re Tichenor, 340 Or 108, 129 P3d 690 (2006)

Law Review Cita­tions

78 OLR 315 (1999)

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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.