Tampering with a witness
Source:
Section 162.285 — Tampering with a witness, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors162.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Inducing witness to elude service of legal summons is not witness tampering. State v. Wagner, 67 Or App 75, 676 P2d 937 (1984)
Inducement or attempted inducement of witness to be absent from official proceeding does not constitute tampering with witness unless witness has been officially summoned at time inducement or attempted inducement is made. State v. Martin, 95 Or App 170, 769 P2d 203 (1989)
“Any official proceeding” includes potential future proceedings. State v. Bailey, 219 Or App 526, 183 P3d 232 (2008), aff’d 346 Or 551, 213 P3d 1240 (2009)
Person may be “witness” whether or not person has testified or has been subpoened to testify. State v. Bryan, 221 Or App 455, 190 P3d 470 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant was found guilty of witness tampering based on letter defendant sent to defendant’s mother encouraging mother and brother either to not testify against defendant or to change their stories, guilty verdicts merge under ORS 161.067 because violations of two different paragraphs of this section do not constitute violations of separate statutory provisions. State v. Jenkins, 280 Or App 691, 383 P3d 395 (2016), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence that defendant reasonably believed that complainant would be called to testify at future official proceeding is not sufficient to show that defendant was attempting to induce complainant to give false testimony at proceeding. State v. Ortiz-Saldana, 288 Or App 230, 406 P3d 61 (2017)
Tampering with witness is not categorical crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of cancellation of removal analysis under immigration law. Vasquez-Valle v. Sessions, 899 F3d 834 (9th Cir. 2018)
Section is divisible for purposes of cancellation of removal analysis under immigration law. Vasquez-Valle v. Sessions, 899 F3d 834 (9th Cir. 2018)