2015 ORS 40.385¹
Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses

At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded until the time of final argument, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of:

(1) A party who is a natural person;

(2) An officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney;

(3) A person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause; or

(4) The victim in a criminal case. [1981 c.892 §56; 1987 c.2 §5; 2003 c.14 §20]

(Rule 615)

See also annota­tions under ORS 45.510 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 45.510)

When one party moves to exclude witnesses and the other party voices no objec­tion the mo­tion should al­ways be granted. State v. Bishop, 7 Or App 558, 492 P2d 509 (1971)

When the mo­tion is opposed, the witnesses should be excluded unless there are sufficient reasons relevant to the purpose of the trial for not excluding witnesses. State v. Bishop, 7 Or App 558, 492 P2d 509 (1971)

Defendant is not prejudiced by failure to exclude witness if testimony of witness is totally unrelated to testimony of prior witnesses. State v. Roberts, 47 Or App 323, 614 P2d 139 (1980)

Under Evidence Code

A viola­tion of an exclusion order is not, of itself, sufficient to disqualify a de­fense witness in a crim­i­nal case and the trial court cannot exclude the testimony based upon this ground alone. State v. Burdge, 295 Or 1, 664 P2d 1076 (1983)

Where overlapping testimony of two witnesses did not concern contested issues, failure to exclude witnesses was harmless error. State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337, 674 P2d 66 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Failure to make mo­tion until after testimony has started is not good cause for denying mo­tion. State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337, 674 P2d 66 (1984), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Larson, 139 Or App 294, 911 P2d 953 (1996), aff'd 325 Or 15, 933 P2d 958 (1997)

Refusal to strike testimony of defendant's experts as sanc­tion for defendant's revealing daily transcripts to experts in viola­tion of order excluding witnesses was within court's discre­tion. Siegfried v. Pacific Northwest Develop­ment Corp., 102 Or App 57, 793 P2d 330 (1990)

Allowing investigating of­fi­cer to remain in courtroom after trial court determined that state had es­tab­lished that of­fi­cer's presence was essential to pros­e­cu­­tion under this sec­tion did not violate defendant's right to cross-examine and to confront witness against him under Article I, sec­tion 11 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Alexander, 105 Or App 566, 805 P2d 743 (1991)

Plaintiff who is unable to comprehend, meaningfully participate in pro­ceed­ings, or assist lawyer in presenta­tion of case may be excluded from liability por­tion of bifurcated trial if court determines plaintiff's presence would be unfairly prejudicial. Bremner v. Charles, 312 Or 274, 821 P2d 1080 (1991)

Asser­tion that fiance of mur­der victim lived with victim did not alone qualify fiance as victim of crim­i­nal case not subject to exclusion. State v. Stookey, 119 Or App 487, 850 P2d 1167 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

City police of­fi­cer who investigates and files state crim­i­nal charge is equivalent of state of­fi­cer for purpose of exemp­tion from exclusion. State v. Cooper, 319 Or 162, 874 P2d 822 (1994); 130 Or App 209, 880 P2d 514 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Erroneous denial of mo­tion does not create presump­tion of prejudice to defendant upon judicial review. State v. Larson, 139 Or App 294, 911 P2d 953 (1996), aff'd 325 Or 15, 933 P2d 958 (1997)

Corpora­tion is entitled to only one corporate representative at pretrial deposi­tion of corporate witnesses. Washington County Assessor v. West Beaverton Congrega­tion of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., 18 OTR 226 (2005)

Corpora­tion may not designate different corporate representative for separate deposi­tions of corporate witnesses. Washington County Assessor v. West Beaverton Congrega­tion of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., 18 OTR 226 (2005)

Exclusion of corporate witness from deposi­tion of corporate representative requires that deposing party comply with court rules related to filing of protective order. Washington County Assessor v. West Beaverton Congrega­tion of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., 18 OTR 226 (2005)

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.