2015 ORS 40.252¹
Rule 504-5. Communications revealing intent to commit certain crimes

(1) In addition to any other limitations on privilege that may be imposed by law, there is no privilege under ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege), 40.230 (Rule 504. Psychotherapist-patient privilege), 40.250 (Rule 504-4. Regulated social worker-client privilege) or 40.264 (Rule 507-1. Certified advocate-victim privilege) for communications if:

(a) In the professional judgment of the person receiving the communications, the communications reveal that the declarant has a clear and serious intent at the time the communications are made to subsequently commit a crime involving physical injury, a threat to the physical safety of any person, sexual abuse or death or involving an act described in ORS 167.322 (Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree);

(b) In the professional judgment of the person receiving the communications, the declarant poses a danger of committing the crime; and

(c) The person receiving the communications makes a report to another person based on the communications.

(2) The provisions of this section do not create a duty to report any communication to any person.

(3) A person who discloses a communication described in subsection (1) of this section, or fails to disclose a communication described in subsection (1) of this section, is not liable to any other person in a civil action for any damage or injury arising out of the disclosure or failure to disclose. [2001 c.640 §2; 2007 c.731 §4; 2015 c.265 §3]

Note: 40.252 (Rule 504-5. Communications revealing intent to commit certain crimes) was added to and made a part of 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges) by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

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.