2017 ORS 40.211¹
Rule 412-1. Evidence not admissible in civil proceeding involving sexual misconduct

(1) Unless the alleged victim has placed the evidence in controversy and the court determines that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party, the following evidence is not admissible in a civil proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:

(a) Evidence offered to prove that an alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or

(b) Evidence offered to prove an alleged victim’s sexual predisposition.

(2) If a party intends to offer evidence under subsection (1) of this section, the party must:

(a) Make a written motion at least 15 days before the date on which the proceeding in which the evidence is to be offered is scheduled to begin unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time;

(b) In the motion, specifically describe the evidence and state the purpose for which it is to be offered;

(c) Serve the motion on all parties; and

(d) Notify the alleged victim or the alleged victim’s representative.

(3) Before admitting evidence under this section, the court must conduct an in camera hearing and give the alleged victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, related materials and the record of the hearing are confidential. A party making a motion under this section shall state in the caption that the motion is confidential.

(4) As used in this section, “in camera” means out of the presence of the public and the jury. [2017 c.321 §2]

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.