State v. Heine, 484 P.3d 391

Heine was indicted on multiple counts; a 12-person jury returned 11–1 guilty verdicts on one felony (tampering with a witness) and one Class B misdemeanor (harassment) and acquitted on the rest.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana.
The parties agreed the felony conviction must be reversed because Ramos requires unanimity for serious offenses; the remaining question was whether the same unanimity requirement applies to petty offenses (misdemeanors authorizing ≤6 months’ incarceration) when tried to a 12-person jury.
Cheff v. Schnackenberg allows states to try petty offenses without a jury, raising the question whether a state that elects a jury for a petty offense may nonetheless accept nonunanimous verdicts.
The court relied on Evitts (due process limits when a state opts into discretionary processes) and Ramos (unanimity is part of an ‘‘impartial jury’’ and criticized Oregon’s nonunanimous origins) to analyze the issue.
The court held that when a state elects to try a petty offense before a jury, due process requires a unanimous verdict; it reversed both convictions and remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Heine's Argument	Held
Whether a 12‑person jury must be unanimous to convict of a petty misdemeanor (≤6 months) when the state elects a jury.	Because the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury for petty offenses, the State may allow nonunanimous jury convictions when it elects to use a jury.	Once the State elects a jury, due process requires a fair jury process; unanimity is required for conviction.	Unanimity is required; nonunanimous convictions reversed and remanded.

Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020) (establishes that jury unanimity is integral to the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury; critiques nonunanimous rules)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (when a State opts into a discretionary process, due process requires that the process meet basic fairness)
Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1966) (Sixth Amendment does not require jury trial for petty offenses)
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1972) (prior precedent permitting nonunanimous verdicts in state courts; discussed and effectively overruled by Ramos)
McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1894) (States need not provide appellate review as of right; cited in Evitts)
State v. Rolfe, 304 Or. App. 461 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (a six‑person jury’s verdict must be unanimous)