State v. Williams
441 P.3d 710
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant (Black) was tried for two counts of first-degree sodomy against a white victim; jury acquitted on one count and returned a 10-2 guilty verdict on the other.
- Defense counsel did not request a unanimous jury instruction and did not object to the nonunanimous verdict at trial.
- At sentencing a juror disclosed she was the only Black juror and one of two who voted to acquit; she said conviction felt unfair.
- Defendant moved for a new trial asserting an as-applied Equal Protection challenge to Oregon’s nonunanimous verdict provision; he did not base the motion on ORCP 64 B(4) (newly discovered evidence) and did not claim juror misconduct below.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing under ORCP 64 G, excluded juror affidavits as jury-verdict impeachment, found historical racial motivation for the provision but no shown disparate impact in this case, and denied the new-trial motion.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding the as-applied Equal Protection challenge was not reviewable because defendant did not proceed under ORCP 64 B(4) or show juror misconduct/newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of denial of new trial | State: appeal not reviewable because defendant conceded he did not proceed under ORCP 64 B(4) | Defendant: denial should be reviewable because court treated motion as under ORCP 64 G with evidentiary hearing and considered juror statements | Held: Not reviewable—appeal requires motion based on juror misconduct or newly discovered evidence (ORCP 64 B(4)); defendant conceded he did not invoke that rule |
| Applicability of ORCP 64 G vs ORCP 64 B(4) | State: court lacked basis to grant new trial absent ORCP 64 B(4) grounds | Defendant: trial court effectively used ORCP 64 B(4) by holding evidentiary hearing under ORCP 64 G | Held: Court may exercise ORCP 64 G, but appellate review limited to ORCP 64 B(4) grounds; defendant did not preserve B(4) claim |
| Use of juror affidavits to impeach verdict | State: affidavits barred as impeachment of verdict | Defendant: affidavits showed pressure and racial bias in deliberations and should be considered | Held: Trial court excluded affidavits as improper jury-verdict impeachment (assignment rejected without written discussion) |
| Merits of as-applied Equal Protection challenge to nonunanimous verdict | Defendant: nonunanimous rule, as applied, violated Equal Protection because verdict was partly racially motivated | State: even if claim had merit, defendant failed to preserve and pursue proper procedural route | Held: Court did not reach merits; claim not reviewable because procedural route not followed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sullens, 314 Or. 436, 839 P.2d 708 (establishing appellate review limited to motions based on juror misconduct or newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Alvarez-Vega, 240 Or. App. 616, 251 P.3d 199 (constitutional challenges beyond scope where defendant failed to show fit with ORCP 64 B(4))
- State v. Williams, 276 Or. App. 688, 368 P.3d 459 (postconviction procedural limitations on similar claims)
- State v. Sartin, 248 Or. App. 748, 274 P.3d 259 (precedent foreclosing certain challenges to nonunanimous verdicts)
- State v. Cobb, 224 Or. App. 594, 198 P.3d 978 (same)