State v. Dyson
Decision Date | 02 December 1981 |
Docket Number | No. D1-8347,D1-8347 |
Citation | 292 Or. 26,636 P.2d 961 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Thomas Wayne DYSON, Petitioner on Review. ; CA 19853; SC 27960. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Elizabeth A. Baldwin, Staff Atty. for Public Defender for Lane County, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the petition and brief for petitioner on review.
Frank Papagni, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty. for Lane County, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent on review. On the brief was J. Pat Horton, Dist. Atty. for Lane County, and Alexander A. Wold, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty. for Lane County, Eugene.
The state appealed to the Court of Appeals from an order by a trial court allowing defendant's motion under ORS 135.865 1 to exclude testimony of all state's witnesses upon the ground that the state had not complied with defendant's request for discovery by providing defendant with the names of the state's witnesses and their written statements as required by ORS 135.815. 2 The Court of Appeals reversed that order by the trial court, holding that under its previous decisions 3 "exclusion of evidence is appropriate only where the violations substantially prejudice the other party in preparing its case for trial and no less severe sanction will obviate the prejudice." 52 Or.App. 833, 836, 629 P.2d 887 (1981). We allowed defendant's petition for review because of our concern that this holding by that court may be contrary to the holding by this court in State v. Wolfe, 273 Or. 518, 542 P.2d 482 (1975).
The Facts.
On October 27, 1979, defendant was riding as a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by another person when the truck was stopped by two state police officers, who cited both defendant and, presumably, the driver for "illegal possession of doe deer," a Class A misdemeanor (ORS 496.162(2)(a) and ORS 496.992).
The facts relating to defendant's subsequent request for discovery under ORS 135.815 and the conduct of the District Attorney pursuant to that request are set forth in the following findings by the trial court as the basis for its order that the state not be permitted to call as witnesses the two state police officers and one other witness:
It also appears that at that time the trial court made the following statement:
The trial court properly excluded the testimony of the state's witnesses for failure by the state to disclose their names and statements on defendant's request until four days before trial.
ORS 135.815 provides that:
ORS 135.845(1) provides that:
ORS 135.865 provides:
"Upon being apprised of any breach of the duty imposed by the provisions of ORS 135.805 to 135.873, the court may order the violating party to permit inspection of the material, or grant a continuance, or refuse to permit the witness to testify, or refuse to receive in evidence the material not disclosed, or enter such other order as it considers appropriate." (Emphasis added)
In State v. Wolfe, 273 Or. 518, 524-25, 542 P.2d 482 (1975), this court held that:
In so holding, we examined the history of ORS 135.865 and noted that:
(273 Or. at 525 n. 3, 542 P.2d 482)
In State v. King, 30 Or.App. 223, 230, 566 P.2d 1204 (1977), rev. den. 281 Or. 1 (1978), the Court of Appeals held that:
" * * * no sanction for violation of the discovery statutes is warranted when the violation causes no prejudice in the preparation of the case for trial."
As the basis for that holding, the Court of Appeals also examined the legislative history of ORS 135.865 and then said as follows:
(30 Or.App. at 231, 566 P.2d 1204)
That holding by the Court of Appeals was reaffirmed by it in State v. Campbell, 44 Or.App. 3, 6, 604 P.2d 1266 (1980), rev. den. 289 Or. 71 (1980), in holding that:
"As we held in State v. King, 30 Or.App. 223, 228, 566 P.2d 1204 (1977), rev. den. 281 Or. 1 (1978), exclusion of evidence is appropriate only where the violation substantially prejudices the other party in preparing its case for trial and no less severe sanction will obviate the prejudice."
In view of these holdings by the Court of Appeals, we have re-examined the legislative history of ORS 135.865, paying particular attention to the following: the Commentary on the Proposed Oregon Criminal Procedure Code, Final Draft and Report, November 1972; 5 the minutes of the meetings of March 16, 1972, and June 2 1972, of Subcommittee 3 of the Criminal Law Revision Commission; 6 and the minutes of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of February 21, 1973, and March 19, 1973, on the Proposed Code. 7 These sources together, in the words of John W Osburn, who participated in drafting the pretrial discovery provisions of the Proposed Code, provide "(t)he most complete and authoritative legislative history of Article XI (ORS 135.805 through ORS...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Taylor, Docket No. 79360
... Page 859 ... 406 N.W.2d 859 ... PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Robert Grove TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 79360 ... 159 Mich.App. 468, 406 N.W.2d 859 ... Hinton, 122 Ill.App.3d 89, 77 Ill.Dec. 487, 460 N.E.2d 791 (1984); State v. Ricci, 472 A.2d 291 (R.I., 1984); State v. Dyson, 292 Or. 26, 636 ... Page 871 ... P.2d 961 (1981) ... Review on appeal then, is as to abuse of discretion. United States v. Levine, 700 F.2d ... ...
-
State v. Mai
...be unprepared to go to trial because of failure by the other party to comply with these discovery statutes. * * *," State v. Dyson, 292 Or. 26, 35-36, 636 P.2d 961 (1981); and to promote pretrial resolution of criminal cases. See Westen,The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich.L.Rev. 71, 138 ......
-
State v. Pilon
...State v. King , 30 Or App 223, 226, 566 P.2d 1204 (1977), rev. den. , 281 Or 1 (1978) (discussing history of discovery); State v. Dyson , 292 Or. 26, 636 P.2d 961 (1981) (same). Chief among the purposes of the rules is "to assure to both the state and the defendant the opportunity, in advan......
-
State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Lincoln County v. Ashley
...meaning to the difference between an Oregon statute and the statute or model code from which it was borrowed. See State v. Dyson, 292 Or. 26, 32-34, 636 P.2d 961 (1981) (giving effect to difference between wording of model code and wording of statute); cf. Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Washington Co.......