Court Opinion

ID: 6935913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 00:32:47.940725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:07:27.792443
License: Public Domain

JOSEPH, C. J.,
dissenting.
It strikes me as unacceptable to rely at all on State ex rel Dooley v. Connall, 257 Or 94, 475 P2d 582 (1970), which is based on the narrowest reading of a since repealed discovery statute, former ORS 138.755, and which reflects a traditionalist and grudging reaction to the very idea of discovery in criminal cases. Given the legislature’s view of discovery (ORS 135.805-ORS 135.873) and (State ex rel Mix v. Newland, 277 Or 191, 560 P2d 255 (1977), we should no longer treat Dooley as anything but a historical curiosity, a thumb in the dike, if you will. Pace State ex rel Wilson v. Thomas, 74 Or App 137, 139 n 1, 700 P2d 1045, rev den 300 Or 64 (1985). I would hold that a prosecutor, like anyone else, may not challenge a judicial order made in the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction by defying the court.