ORS 40.272¹
Rule 509-1. Sign language interpreter privilege

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Person with a disability” means a person who cannot readily understand or communicate the spoken English language, or cannot understand proceedings in which the person is involved, because of deafness or because of a physical hearing impairment or cannot communicate in the proceedings because of a physical speaking impairment.

(b) “Sign language interpreter” or “interpreter” means a person who translates conversations or other communications for a person with a disability or translates the statements of a person with a disability.

(2) A person with a disability has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent a sign language interpreter from disclosing any communications to which the person with a disability was a party that were made while the interpreter was providing interpretation services for the person with a disability. The privilege created by this section extends only to those communications between a person with a disability and another, and translated by the interpreter, that would otherwise be privileged under ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges). [1993 c.179 §2; 2007 c.70 §11]

Note: 40.272 (Rule 509-1. Sign language interpreter privilege) 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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
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. Currency Information