State v. Guzek
358 Or. 251
| Or. | 2015Background
- Defendant Guzek was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder in 1988 and sentenced to death; case has undergone multiple remands for new penalty-phase trials (Guzek I–V).
- This is the automatic/direct review of Guzek’s fourth penalty-phase death sentence, rendered in 2010 and challenged on numerous grounds.
- The central contested issues concern (a) ordering Guzek to wear a stun belt during the remanded penalty-phase trial and (b) the jury’s allocution instructions.
- The prior penalty-phase trials (1991, 1997, 2010 remand) involved varying restraints and evidentiary issues; the 2010 trial proceeded with a stun belt and specific jury instructions.
- The court held a limited evidentiary record on restraints, reviewed state and federal constitutional standards, and ultimately upheld the stun belt requirement.
- The court concluded that Guzek’s allocution could be considered in sentencing and that the final verdict instructions appropriately integrated allocution with the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stun belt use during penalty phase complied with law | State argues security needs justify stun belt. | Guzek contends no adequate hearing and excessive prejudice. | Stun belt upheld under state law. |
| Sufficiency of record for restraints decision | Record shows risk and security considerations supporting restraint. | Record incomplete; live testimony required. | Record and findings sufficient; no live evidentiary hearing required. |
| Whether allocution instructions were proper | Allocution should be considered; instructions must reflect that. | Instructions improperly limit consideration of allocution. | Allocution properly allowed to influence sentencing; final instructions coherent with evidence requirement. |
| Whether federal Deck framework governs restraint decision | Deck requires proper discretion and record. | Deck requires more stringent evidentiary hearing. | Court acted within discretion; Deck applied with individualized state interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (standards for restraints and due process in penalty Phase)
- Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1961) (allocution importance in modern sentencing)
- United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (prejudice considerations for stun belts)
- Rogers v. State, 352 Or 510 (Or. 2012) (allocution rights and jury procedures)
- Washington v. State, 355 Or 612 (Or. 2014) (right to appear free of restraints; state-law grounds)
- DeAngelo v. Schiedler, 306 Or 91 (Or. 1988) (allocution historically tied to sentencing)
- Wagner v. State, 309 Or 5 (Or. 1990) (scope of mitigating evidence and jury considerations)
- Ferman-Velasco v. State, 333 Or 422 (Or. 2002) (allocution and sentencing context in Oregon)
- State v. Kessler, 57 Or App 469 (Or. App. 1982) (informal evidentiary record standards in restraints contexts)
- State v. Wall, 252 Or App 435 (Or. App. 2012) (non-formal evidentiary proofs for restraint decisions)