State v. Sagdal
343 P.3d 226
Or.2015Background
- Sagdal charged with misdemeanor reckless driving; trial court empanelled six jurors despite request for ten; verdict was unanimous guilty; Court of Appeals affirmed; Oregon Constitution Article I §11 allows 10 jurors to render a verdict when using a 12-person jury, except first-degree murder must be unanimous; Article VII (Amended) §9 allows juries of six to 12; issue is whether six-person juries in misdemeanor cases comply with constitutional provisions.
- The issue concerns whether Article I §11’s “ten members may render a verdict” creates a minimum jury size in all criminal trials or only when 12-member juries are used, and how Article VII (Amended) §9 interacts.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reviews whether the six-person jury for Sagdal’s misdemeanor trial violated Article I §11 or Article VII (Amended) §9, and holds the ten-member provision does not mandate a 10+ jury in all criminal trials; six-member juries are authorized for misdemeanor cases under ORS 136.210(2) and Article VII (Amended) §9.
- The court analyzes text, context, and history of the amendments, including Osbourne interpreting §11 as applying to courts with 12-member juries, and concludes Article VII (Amended) §9 grants legislative power to set six-to-twelve-member juries in all courts and cases; article §11 governs unanimity, not size, for 12-member juries.
- The decision confirms the Court of Appeals and circuit court judgments, upholding a six-person jury for Sagdal’s misdemeanor trial and leaving open questions about nonunanimous verdicts for less-than-12 juries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article I §11 set a minimum jury size of 10 in criminal trials? | Sagdal: ten jurors required to render verdict in circuit court. | State: §11 permits nonunanimous verdicts with 12-member juries; six-person juries allowed by §9. | No; §11 governs verdict unanimity, not minimum size. |
| How do Article I §11 and Article VII (Amended) §9 interact for misdemeanor trials? | Sagdal argues conflict; §11 dominates. | State: §9 allows six-member juries in all courts; no size conflict. | §9 authorizes six-member juries in misdemeanors; §11 not controlling size in this context. |
| Is ORS 136.210(2) valid to require six-person juries for misdemeanor cases? | Legislature can set six-person juries. | Statute conflicts with a 10-person implied minimum. | Yes; statute valid for misdemeanor trials. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osbourne v. State, 153 Or 484 (1936) (interprets §11 as restricting unanimity for twelve-member juries)
- State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513 (2013) (referred amendments interpreted with statute/history context)
- State v. Reinke, 354 Or 98 (2013) (interprets referred constitutional amendments like statutes)
- State v. Harrell/Wilson, 353 Or 247 (2013) (text and context guide interpretation of constitutional amendments)
- Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or 38 (2000) (framework for interpreting statutes and amendments; considers history)