451 P.3d 1032
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Talon Ramoz was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of first‑degree rape and two counts of first‑degree unlawful sexual penetration.
- Both parties submitted proposed jury instructions; defendant stipulated to two of the instructions and did not object to the final instructions when read in court.
- The court’s final oral and written instructions omitted the specific mens rea word “knowingly” in the special‑application elements for the counts, though the general instruction referenced a culpable mental state.
- About three months after verdict, Ramoz moved for a new trial under ORCP 64 B(1) claiming an "irregularity in the proceedings" (the omitted mens rea); the trial court granted the motion and vacated the judgment, citing its own mistake and judicial efficiency.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that instructional error of this type (to which a party stipulated or failed to object) is legal error but not an "irregularity in the proceedings of the court" under ORCP 64 B(1), and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ramoz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may grant a new trial under ORCP 64 B(1) for jury instructions that omit an element when the defendant stipulated to or failed to object to the instructions | The omission is legal error, but ORCP 64 B(6) controls legal error and requires an objection or exception; because Ramoz stipulated/failed to object, ORCP 64 B(1) does not apply and a new trial may not be granted | The omission was an "irregularity in the proceedings of the court" that prevented a fair trial, and ORCP 64 B(1) does not require prior objection, so the court properly granted a new trial | Court of Appeals: Reversed. Instructional errors of law, when not objected to or when the defendant stipulated, are not "irregularities in the proceedings" under ORCP 64 B(1); relief for unobjected legal error lies in ORCP 64 B(6) (preservation) or on appeal via plain‑error review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121 (discussing plain‑error review for unpreserved instructional error)
- Maulding v. Clackamas County, 278 Or 359 (predecessor rule: no new trial for an erroneous instruction not objected to)
- Silberman‑Doney v. Gargan, 256 Or App 263 (trial court legal rulings that occur regularly are not "irregularities in the proceedings")
- McCollum v. Kmart Corp., 228 Or App 101 (denial of in camera inspection and motion in limine ruling were not irregularities)
- Yarbrough v. Viewcrest Investments, LLC, 299 Or App 143 (distinguishing clerical versus judicial errors under ORCP 71)
- State v. Woodman, 195 Or App 385 (standard of review for a trial court's grant/denial of a new trial)