ORS 40.415¹
Rule 703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. [1981 c.892 §59]

(Rule 703)

Notes of Decisions

OEC 703 does not permit state’s expert witness on direct examina­tion to reveal to the jury results of excludable blood test in pros­e­cu­­tion for driving under the influence of intoxicants. State v. Knepper, 62 Or App 623, 61 P2d 560 (1983)

Where no witness testified about seeing defendant wearing jacket in co-defendant’s vehicle when victim was killed and facts were made known to expert witness through prosecutor’s hypothetical ques­tion, evidence was sufficient to support finding to that effect. State v. Nefstad, 309 Or 523, 789 P2d 1326 (1990)

Error in admitting testimony of police of­fi­cer, not qualified as expert, re­gard­ing speed of vehicles involved in collision, was harmless in light of other evidence. Hays v. Huard, 108 Or App 289, 814 P2d 559 (1991)

Police of­fi­cer, qualified as expert, could testify based on reconstruc­tion as to speed of vehicle involved in collision although he was not eyewitness to accident. DeFries v. Post 108 Or App 298, 815 P2d 224 (1991)

In forming opinion about why event happened, expert witness may consider testimony of participant in event that describes what happened. Bray v. Pfeifer, 112 Or App 375, 829 P2d 730 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 423 (1983); 27 WLR 27 (1991)

Chapter 40


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