State v. Savage, 470 P.3d 387

In 2014 Savage was tried for a residential break‑in: the jury acquitted him of burglary and robbery but convicted him of aggravated first‑degree theft. That conviction was later overturned on appeal.
At the 2016 retrial on the theft charge, Savage moved in limine to exclude evidence linked to the earlier burglary/robbery, arguing primarily OEC prior‑bad‑acts/evidentiary grounds.
The trial court excluded evidence of the robbery but admitted evidence tied to the burglary; Savage was convicted of aggravated first‑degree theft at the retrial.
On appeal Savage raised multiple assignments of error, including (1) that admission of evidence related to the acquitted burglary violated double jeopardy/issue‑preclusion (Ashe), and (2) that the verdict was nonunanimous (10–2).
After the Supreme Court decided Ramos, and Oregon decided Ulery, the state conceded the nonunanimous verdict was plain error; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on that ground.
The court declined to reach the merits of Savage’s Ashe/double‑jeopardy claim because it held that the constitutional issue was not preserved below—Savage had advanced only OEC evidentiary arguments in his written motion and did not ask the trial court to perform the Ashe record review required for issue preclusion relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double‑jeopardy/issue‑preclusion (Ashe) barred admission of evidence related to a prior acquittal	State: not preserved below; trial court was not asked to apply Ashe record‑review; admissibility decided under OEC	Savage: Ashe and double‑jeopardy principles preclude the state from relying on facts/evidence from the prior acquittal	Unpreserved: appellate court refuses to reach merit; defendant’s Ashe argument rejected on preservation grounds
Whether acceptance of a 10–2 guilty verdict violated the Sixth Amendment	State: concedes error under Ramos/Ulery; accepts verdict was nonunanimous plain error	Savage: verdict nonunanimous; violates Sixth Amendment per Ramos	Reversed and remanded: conviction vacated due to nonunanimous jury verdict; court exercised discretion to correct plain error

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. _ (nonunanimous jury verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (double‑jeopardy issue preclusion framework)
State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 (trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdict is plain error; courts may correct)
State v. Mozorosky, 277 Or 493 (Oregon adoption and discussion of Ashe framework)
Currier v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 2144 (describing Ashe record‑review inquiry)