502 P.3d 783
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Consolidated appeal from two judgments after a single jury trial (Case Nos. 18CR27215 and 18CR57235) charging multiple offenses including unlawful use of a weapon, menacing, assault, burglary, and kidnapping.
- The trial court, over defendant's objection, instructed the jury that it could return nonunanimous guilty verdicts; the jury returned nonunanimous verdicts on several counts and on several sentencing-enhancement factors.
- The State conceded that the instruction permitting nonunanimous guilty verdicts was erroneous in light of Ramos v. Louisiana.
- The court held that nonunanimous jury findings on sentencing-enhancement factors also require unanimity and that a nonunanimous enhancement finding requires remand for resentencing even when the guilt verdict was unanimous.
- Result: convictions with nonunanimous guilty verdicts (Counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 in 18CR57235) reversed and remanded; convictions with unanimous guilt but nonunanimous enhancement findings (Count 1 in 18CR27215 and Count 4 in 18CR57235) affirmed as to guilt but remanded for resentencing; other convictions affirmed. The court rejected defendant's challenge to denial of a judgment of acquittal without written findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could instruct the jury it may return nonunanimous guilty verdicts | State conceded the instruction was erroneous under Ramos | Instruction violated defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict | Instruction was erroneous; convictions based on nonunanimous verdicts reversed and remanded |
| Whether sentencing-enhancement factors may be found by a nonunanimous jury | State did not prevail on this point; no basis to uphold nonunanimous enhancements | Enhancements require unanimous jury findings | Enhancement findings require unanimity; nonunanimous enhancements require remand for resentencing |
| Whether a unanimous guilt verdict must be reversed when its associated enhancement finding is nonunanimous | State argued guilt conviction can stand while enhancement is vacated | Defendant argued the nonunanimous enhancement requires reversal of related sentencing | Court affirmed guilt convictions that were unanimous but remanded those counts for resentencing due to nonunanimous enhancements |
| Whether denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal without written discussion was error | State maintained denial was proper without written explanation | Defendant contended written reasons were required | Assignment of error rejected; no reversal on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (U.S. Supreme Court holding that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous guilty verdicts)
- State v. Kincheloe, 478 P.3d 507 (2020) (Oregon Supreme Court applying unanimity requirement post-Ramos)
- State v. Ross, 481 P.3d 1286 (2021) (Oregon court explaining that Oregon requires unanimous guilty verdicts and the permissible forms of nonunanimous not-guilty votes)