473 P.3d 1163
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Thomas Charles Wollam was convicted in Washington County on three counts: third-degree assault, reckless driving (Class A misdemeanor), and recklessly endangering another person (Class A misdemeanor).
- Each jury verdict was nonunanimous; the court accepted those verdicts over Wollam’s objections at trial.
- Wollam appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence to prove the requisite culpable mental state for each count, and (2) that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated his rights.
- The State conceded that Ramos v. Louisiana requires unanimous jury verdicts, which would mandate reversal of Wollam’s convictions on that ground.
- The court rejected Wollam’s sufficiency challenge as unpreserved and found no plain error on that ground.
- The court reversed and remanded based on the Ramos unanimity rule, and declined to address other evidentiary, instructional, and closing-argument complaints because those issues may not recur on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for mens rea | State: evidence supported convictions | Wollam: evidence insufficient to prove culpable mental state | Rejected as unpreserved; no plain error on this record |
| Validity of nonunanimous jury verdicts | State: did not contest Ramos concession | Wollam: nonunanimous verdicts violate Sixth Amendment unanimity | Reversed and remanded under Ramos; unanimity required |
| Right to jury for Class A misdemeanors | State: jury right applies where exposure >6 months | Wollam: jury/unanimity issues apply | Court: Sixth Amendment jury right (and Ramos unanimity) applies because Class A misdemeanor exposure can exceed six months (citing Baldwin) |
| Other trial errors (evidentiary, instructional, argument restriction) | State: issues forfeited or harmless | Wollam: trial court erred in multiple rulings | Court declined to reach—issues may not recur on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. _ (2020) (Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous jury verdicts at trial)
- Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970) (jury trial right applies where possible penalty exceeds six months)
- Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966) (discussion of petty-offense exception to jury trial right)