State v. Osborn, 500 P.3d 61

Background

Defendant Roxanne Osborn was tried for first-degree forgery and first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument; jury returned a nonunanimous verdict on Count 1 and unanimous verdict on Count 2.
Pretrial, Osborn moved in limine objecting to any shackling/restraints at trial as unconstitutional; the court initially stated she would not be restrained and that the jury would not see restraints.
On the day of trial, Osborn was brought into court wearing a concealed leg restraint that limited knee bending; she objected after voir dire and moved for a mistrial and removal of the restraint.
The trial court denied the motion after a deputy explained a blanket jail policy of using restraints for incarcerated defendants; the court made no particularized findings about Osborn’s dangerousness or need for the restraint.
Osborn later decided not to testify; the record shows she could not wear the clothes she had brought because they would have revealed the restraint.
On appeal the court held Osborn preserved her objection, the trial court abused its discretion by authorizing restraints without the required particularized findings, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — reversing and remanding for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of objection to courtroom restraints	Objection was general and did not request factual findings or record development, so not preserved	Raised motion in limine and repeated objection after voir dire citing federal due process cases; that was sufficient to present the issue	Preserved: defendant’s filings and oral objections sufficiently presented the due-process restraint claim
Standard for ordering restraints in court	Court may rely on jail/security practices and deputy explanation; restraint was concealed and not prejudicial	Restraints require particularized findings showing immediate and serious risk and that restraint is least restrictive means; court made no independent findings	Trial court abused discretion by authorizing leg restraint without an independent, particularized record-based determination
Harmlessness of the shackling error	Restraint was not visible to jury; record lacks proof restraint affected testimony choice or counsel consultation; any error was harmless	Restraint impeded knee movement, prevented wearing chosen clothes, and may have influenced decision not to testify or participation; state must prove harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under federal standard; under Oregon standard there was a likelihood the error affected the verdict — reversal required
Effect on convictions and remedy	State argued some convictions could stand (Count 2 unanimous) despite errors	Defendant sought reversal and new trial due to shackling error	Court reversed and remanded for new trial on grounds of unlawful restraint; did not resolve other assigned errors on the merits

Key Cases Cited

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (shackling can violate due process; harmless-error standard under federal constitution)
Sanchez-Gomez v. Cty. of San Diego, 859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2017) (districtwide routine shackling policy violated due process)
State v. Wall, 252 Or. App. 435 (2012) (Oregon recognizes right to be free from physical restraint at trial; need for particularized basis)
State v. Kessler, 57 Or. App. 469 (1982) (trial court must make independent determination and record when ordering restraints)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (harmless-error test under Oregon Constitution — little likelihood it affected verdict)
State v. Walton, 311 Or. 223 (1991) (state bears burden under federal standard to prove harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Glick, 73 Or. App. 79 (1985) (restraint without substantial justification results in manifest prejudice)