State v. Rogers
288 P.3d 544
| Or. | 2012Background
- The case involves automatic direct review of death sentences from a penalty-phase trial in Clackamas County, Oregon.
- Defendant challenged Measure 6 (Article I, section 40) on separate-vote grounds and various constitutional/statutory theories tied to the death penalty scheme.
- The court held that Measure 6 made four substantial changes to the Oregon Constitution (death penalty plus barriers removed from sections 15 and 16) but those changes were closely related and did not violate the separate-vote requirement.
- The court addressed the so-called third question (unreasonableness of conduct in response to provocation) and found issues about preservation and facial validity but did not sustain broad challenges to its structure as applied here.
- A central part of the decision vacated the death sentences due to (i) anonymous-jury procedures lacking the required case-specific grounds and (ii) admissibility errors regarding defendant’s teenage homosexual experiences; the case is remanded for a new penalty-phase trial.
- The opinion discusses preservation, procedural posture, and the limits of currency of Sundberg-like anonymity rules when evaluating juror anonymity in penalty phases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Measure 6 violated separate-vote | State argued not void; changes closely related. | Rogers contends Measure 6 violated separate-vote rule and void ab initio. | Measure 6 did not violate separate-vote; changes were closely related. |
| Validity of the third question (provocation) in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(C) | Statute valid as part of the death-penalty scheme. | Challenge that third question is facially invalid and/or improperly applied. | Third question is facially valid; preservation issues limit review of its application here. |
| Anonymous jury procedures in the penalty phase | Anonymous procedures protected juror privacy under Sundberg. | Anonymous jury violated right to impartial jury and tainted voir dire. | Error to empanel an anonymous jury without strong, case-specific grounds and mitigation; death sentences vacated and remanded. |
| Admissibility of testimony about defendant's teenage homosexual experiences | Testimony offered as relevant to future dangerousness. | Such testimony is unduly prejudicial and not sufficiently linked to future dangerousness. | Admission improperly prejudicial; requires reversal and remand for new penalty phase. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or 250 (1998) (separate-vote framework for constitutional amendments)
- Lehman v. Bradbury, 333 Or 231 (2002) (closely-related analysis for separate-vote)
- Meyer v. Bradbury, 341 Or 288 (2006) (closely-related changes to constitution principle)
- Swett v. Bradbury, 333 Or 597 (2002) (separate-vote considerations in measure-based changes)
- Sundberg, 349 Or 608 (2011) (anonymous-jury procedure rule requiring case-specific grounds and mitigation)
- Wagner, 305 Or 115 (1988) (capital-punishment considerations under Oregon Measure 6 context)
- Clark v. Paulus, 295 Or 673 (1983) (interpretation of Measure 6's scope and text)
- Quinn, 290 Or 383 (1981) (constitutional interpretation context for Measure 6)