State v. Sundberg
247 P.3d 1213
Or.2011Background
- Defendant Sundberg was charged with first-degree sexual abuse and attempted unlawful sexual penetration based on actions with a 10-year-old victim.
- At trial, the court used an anonymous jury—names and identifying information were withheld from parties, counsel, and the public.
- Voir dire in Sundberg’s trial occurred after another trial in the same courthouse; jurors in the other case disclosed names and employment.
- Defense objected to not receiving jurors’ names, but the objection was overruled; the court explained the Linn County practice of anonymity.
- Sundberg moved for a new trial alleging that anonymous juror selection violated state and federal constitutions and deprived him of impartial jury rights.
- The Court of Appeals held Sundberg waived the issue by failing to preserve it properly; the Oregon Supreme Court reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sundberg properly preserved the anonymous-jury issue. | Sundberg waived by not requesting findings. | Objection preserved; anonymity violated Article I, section 11. | Yes; preservation satisfied; trial court erred. |
| Whether the trial court had authority to empanel an anonymous jury. | Court relied on ORS 10.205(2) to withhold names. | Statute does not authorize withholding juror identities for voir dire. | Authority existed in general; however, required case-specific justification. |
| Whether anonymous jury violated Sundberg’s right to impartial jury under Article I, section 11. | Anonymity protects juror safety and privacy; voir dire and bias could be controlled. | Anonymity impairs voir dire, risks portraying defendant as dangerous, undermining presumption of innocence. | Anonymous-jury use without findings and mitigation violated Article I, section 11. |
| Was the error harmless or reversible? | Error undermined fair trial and impartial jury. | Unclear if prejudice affected verdict. | Not harmless; reversal and new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haugen, 349 Or. 174 (2010) (preservation and trial-error framework, allowing appeal on constitutional grounds)
- State v. Amini, 331 Or. 384 (2000) (impartial jury requires protection from improper influences and bias)
- State v. Cavan, 337 Or. 433 (2004) (trial environment can affect impartiality; need neutral trial settings)
- U.S. v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1991) (anonymous-jury permissible when strong reasons exist and rights protected)
- Fernandez v. United States, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (court may withhold identities with neutral explanation and safeguards)
- U.S. v. Ross, 174 P.3d 628 (Utah 2007) (compelling-reason requirement; protections for defendant's rights)