State v. Reinke
309 P.3d 1059
Or.2013Background
- Defendant Reinke was indicted for second-degree kidnapping (Class B felony) and convicted after waiving a jury; the State sought sentencing as a "dangerous offender" under ORS 161.725(1)(b).
- Second-degree kidnapping carries a 10-year maximum; dangerous-offender status permits up to 30 years if three sentencing findings are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The grand jury indictment did not include the sentence-enhancement facts; the State gave timely written notice per ORS 136.765 and proved the enhancement facts at sentencing.
- Reinke argued the Oregon Constitution (Art VII (Amended), §5 and Art I, §11) requires grand-jury finding and indictment pleading of sentence-enhancement facts.
- The trial court rejected that claim, found the enhancement facts, imposed a longer sentence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reinke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article VII (Amended), §5 requires grand jury to find and indictment to plead sentence-enhancement facts | §5 requires only that grand jury find the elements of the legislatively defined crime (not enhancement facts); legislative notice provisions suffice | §5’s term "crime punishable as a felony" includes any fact that authorizes enhanced punishment, so grand jury must find and indictment must plead those facts | Held: §5 requires grand jury to find only the elements of the offense as defined by statute; enhancement facts need not be found or pleaded by grand jury |
| Whether Article I, §11 Notice Clause requires indictment to plead enhancement facts | Notice satisfied by pleading elements; statutory notice (ORS 136.765) and procedure suffice | The clause guarantees the right to demand the nature and cause of accusation, so indictments must allege enhancement facts necessary to increase punishment | Held: Notice Clause does not require indictment to plead sentence-enhancement facts; later §5 framing and legislative scheme control |
| Whether Article I, §11 Jury Trial Clause transforms enhancement facts into grand-jury/indictment obligations | Jury Trial Clause governs jury factfinding at trial but does not alter grand jury/indictment requirements | Because jury must find certain sentencing facts, grand jury must also find (and indictment plead) enhancement facts | Held: Jury Trial Clause does not compel grand jury to find or indictment to plead enhancement facts; Article VII (Amended), §5 governs grand jury role |
| Whether prior Oregon precedent (Wagner and follow-ons) should be overruled | Precedent correctly interprets state constitutional provisions and legislative role in defining elements | Reinke urged overruling Wagner and related cases based on textual/historical analysis | Held: Court declines to overrule Wagner and related cases; affirms that legislature defines elements and may provide alternative notice for enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wagner, 305 Or 115 (Or. 1988) (state-law precedent holding indictment must allege crime elements but need not plead sentencing enhancements)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (federal precedent distinguishing elements from sentencing factors in indictments)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (federal rule that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (discussing role of jury findings for sentencing enhancements under federal law)
- State v. Hicks, 213 Or 619 (Or. 1958) (holding grand jury need only find elements of the conventional charge, not enhancement facts)
- State v. Waterhouse, 209 Or 424 (Or. 1957) (describing common-law rule that enhancements historically had to be pleaded unless legislature provided otherwise)
- State v. Sawatzky, 339 Or 689 (Or. 2005) (refusing to import federal Grand Jury Clause holdings into state constitutional law on enhancements)
- State v. Cox, 337 Or 477 (Or. 2004) (discussing Apprendi implications and preserving state-law approach)
- State v. Ice, 343 Or 248 (Or. 2007) (explaining which sentencing facts Article I, §11 requires juries to find and distinguishing those from grand-jury duties)