2017 ORS 40.425¹
Rule 705. Disclosure of fact or data underlying expert opinion

An expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. [1981 c.892 §61]

(Rule 705)

Notes of Decisions

Technician’s certifica­tion attesting to accuracy of intoxilyzer machine bears those indicia of reliability tradi­tionally associated with public records and is admissible for that reason and thus this Rule was relevant, if at all, only to extent that despite certificate’s reliability defendant chose to cross-examine technician-expert. State v. Bigej, 77 Or App 18, 711 P2d 189 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court erred in excluding evidence of Intoxilyzer test when per­son who administered test was not available to testify as defendant did not have right to cross-examine that per­son and it was sufficient that state offered testimony of per­son who had observed test, was licensed to administer test and could testify from per­sonal knowledge whether test ad­min­is­tra­­tion pro­ce­dures were followed. State v. McCormack, 92 Or App 84, 756 P2d 1281 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 425 (1983); 27 WLR 27 (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.