State v. Woodall, 313 P.3d 298

Defendant stood trial for multiple sex crimes (first-degree rape, second- and third-degree sexual abuse, attempted sexual abuse, first-degree sodomy) and related drug offenses, spanning five years and involving three victims.
He demurred to second-degree sexual abuse and attempted second-degree sexual abuse claiming the penalties were not proportioned to the offense under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution.
Two trial irregularities revealed that jurors learned of his prior sex-offense conviction; defendant moved for mistrial on both occasions; the court denied the motions.
The jury found defendant guilty on numerous counts and the convictions proceeded despite the demurrer and mistrial requests.
The court held that proportionality issue lies with sentencing guidelines, not the statutes themselves, so the remedy is remand for resentencing rather than dismissal of charges.
On mistrial, the court weighed fairness to both sides, offered curative instructions, and denied mistrial; the appellate court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proportionality of second-degree sexual abuse penalties	Rodriguez/Buck and Simonson argue penalties are disproportional	Woodall argues penalties violate Article I, §16	Remand for resentencing; demurrer affirmed (no dismissal of underlying offenses)
Juror knowledge of defendant's sex-offender status	State contends mistrial not required; jurors could be fair	Mistrial necessary due to prejudicial knowledge	Not an abuse of discretion to deny mistrial; curative instructions adequate and jurors remained able to decide on merits
Effect of inadvertent reference and cafeteria overhearing on fair trial	State should avoid prejudice from prior-conviction references	Prejudice from repeated references undermines fairness	No reversible error; overall trial fairness preserved given safeguards and juror conduct

State v. Cervantes, 232 Or. App. 567 (Or. App. 2009) (demurrer reviewed for legal error; proportionality challenge discussed)
State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or. 46 (Or. 2009) (crime seriousness scores; sentencing guidelines control proportionality issue)
State v. Simonson, 243 Or. App. 535 (Or. App. 2011) (sentencing disproportionality rests with guidelines, not statute)
State v. Ferrell, 315 Or. 213 (Or. 1992) (remedy for defect is to affirm conviction and remand for resentencing)
State v. Bowen, 340 Or. 487 (Or. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for mistrial decisions; drastic remedy avoided)
State v. Middleton, 256 Or. App. 173 (Or. App. 2013) (juror credibility and following court instructions presumed unless strong evidence otherwise)
State v. Jenkins, 63 Or. App. 858 (Or. App. 1983) (prejudicial misconduct when prosecutor improperly highlights prior crimes; mistrial may be required)
State v. Jones, 279 Or. 55 (Or. 1977) (reversible error when prosecutor repeats claim of prior crimes without proof)
State v. Evans, 211 Or. App. 162 (Or. App. 2007) (isolated inadvertent comment; curative instruction may suffice)
State v. Stanley, 30 Or. App. 33 (Or. App. 1977) (courts assess credibility of juror statements in trial rulings)