311 P.3d 941
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was found asleep/unconscious in a running car, showed signs of intoxication, and registered a 0.30 BAC on an Intoxilyzer; charged with DUII (resolved) and reckless driving (trial).
- Defendant requested a jury of at least 10 for his misdemeanor trial in circuit court; the court empaneled a six-person jury under ORS 136.210(2).
- Six-person jury convicted defendant of reckless driving; defendant appealed, arguing a 10-person jury was constitutionally required.
- Central legal question: whether Article I, § 11 of the Oregon Constitution requires a minimum jury size of 10 in circuit-court criminal trials, or whether Article VII (Amended), § 9 authorizes legislatively prescribed juries as small as six.
- Court analyzed the text, context, and historical materials (voters’ pamphlets, legislative history) of both constitutional provisions and sought to harmonize them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I, § 11 requires a minimum 10-person jury in circuit-court criminal trials | State: Article I, § 11 provides for 10-person verdicts when a 12-person jury is used; it does not impose a minimum jury size | De Muniz: Article I, § 11 entitles any criminal defendant in circuit court to a jury of at least 10 because it specifies that "in the circuit court ten members... may render a verdict" | Held: Article I, § 11 was intended to permit nonunanimous 10-of-12 verdicts, not to mandate a minimum jury size; it does not bar six-person juries |
| Whether Article VII (Amended), § 9 allows the legislature to authorize juries smaller than 12 in circuit court | State: The plain text grants legislature authority to provide juries of less than 12 but not fewer than six for any court; legislative history confirms deletion of a limiting phrase | De Muniz: Article VII (Amended), § 9 cannot override Article I, § 11’s circuit-court protection for 10 jurors | Held: Article VII (Amended), § 9 unambiguously authorizes juries of 6–11 members in any court, including circuit court |
| Whether the statutes implementing six-person juries (ORS 136.210(2)) were within legislative authority | State: ORS 136.210(2) is within the legislature’s authority under Article VII (Amended), § 9 | De Muniz: The statute conflicts with Article I, § 11’s supposed 10-juror requirement for circuit court | Held: ORS 136.210(2) validly implements Article VII (Amended), § 9; six-person juries for misdemeanors in circuit court are constitutional |
| Whether the six-person jury verdict was valid | State: Verdict valid under harmonized reading of the Constitution | De Muniz: Verdict invalid because jury size wrong | Held: Verdict affirmed; six-person jury properly empaneled and its unanimous verdict stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Osbourne, 153 Or. 484 (Or. 1936) (interpreting 1934 amendment as tied to courts using 12-person juries)
- State ex rel Smith v. Sawyer, 263 Or. 136 (Or. 1972) (1934 amendment contemplates 12-person juries and nonunanimous verdicts)
- Roseburg Sch. Dist. v. City of Roseburg, 316 Or. 374 (Or. 1993) (framework for discerning voters’ intent in referred amendments)
- Ecumenical Ministries v. Or. State Lottery Comm., 318 Or. 551 (Or. 1994) (use of text, context, and public materials to determine voters’ understanding)
- Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 333 Or. 101 (Or. 2001) (caution against assuming text is dispositive without examining voter materials)