2017 ORS 40.380¹
Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses

(1) In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in ORS 40.450 (Rule 801. Definitions for ORS 40.450 to 40.475). [1981 c.892 §55a; 1983 c.433 §2; 1983 c.740 §5]

(Rule 613)

See also annota­tions under ORS 45.610 and 45.630 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 45.610)

Prior consistent state­ment of witness impeached by prior inconsistent state­ments was admissible where peculiar circumstances indicated relevance. State v. Knoke, 14 Or App 187, 512 P2d 1353 (1973)

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 45.630)

A founda­tion must be laid before a witness can be impeached by an offer of evidence that the witness has engaged in con­duct showing bias or interest. State v. Dowell, 274 Or 547, 547 P2d 619 (1976)

Under Evidence Code

Trial court did not err when it excluded testimony of per­son who allegedly heard victim’s mother say that victim was “pathological liar” because mother had already testified that, although she now believed victim was telling truth, she had pre­vi­ously thought him to be untruthful. State v. Shearer, 101 Or App 543, 792 P2d 1215 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions (For ORS 45.610 In Permanent Edi­tion)

State v. Obremski, 5 Or App 302, 483 P2d 467 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Atkison, 6 Or App 68, 485 P2d 1117 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Evidence Code

19 WLR 395 (1983); 28 WLR 127 (1991)

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.