On review, defendant raises 77 assignments of error, only 12 of which warrant discussion here. Those 12 issues encompass four broad contentions: (1) the penalty-phase trial court judge was, or appeared to be, biased and should not have presided over the proceeding; (2) the court erroneously admitted evidence not specific to defendant regarding the second capital sentencing question set out at ORS 163.150(1)(b)(B) (whether there is a probability that defendant would commit criminal acts of violence constituting a "continuing threat to society"); (3) the court failed to expressly preclude jury consideration of aggravation evidence regarding the fourth capital sentencing question set out at ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) (whether defendant
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter comes before the court following the fourth jury determination that defendant should be sentenced to death for the 1987 aggravated murder of Anne Gray. At the time of Gray's death, defendant-while serving a term of incarceration for crimes not at issue here-lived in a cottage on the grounds of the Oregon State Hospital in
Gray-a neighbor of defendant's girlfriend-disappeared on December 10, 1987. The same day, defendant enlisted his girlfriend's help in transporting a large, awkward bundle wrapped in a comforter from Gray's apartment to the home of defendant's aunt. In April 1988, Gray's decomposed body was found buried in a shallow grave located in the aunt's backyard. The discovery of Gray's body was facilitated in large part by the discovery a day earlier of defendant's second victim, Larry Rockenbrant, one of defendant's acquaintances.
In December 1989, a jury found defendant guilty of aggravated murder in the death of Gray and sentenced defendant to die. In 1992, this court affirmed 15 of defendant's 16 aggravated murder convictions, but it vacated his
A second penalty-phase proceeding followed, and defendant was again sentenced to death for Gray's murder. In 2000, this court vacated that death sentence on direct review, concluding that the trial court had erred by (1) refusing to allow defendant to waive any ex post facto objection to retroactively considering a true-life sentencing option in his case and (2) refusing to instruct the jury on that sentencing option. Langley II ,
On remand for a third penalty-phase proceeding, defendant was once again sentenced to death-after going through seven different defense attorneys and being ordered to proceed as a pro se litigant. On direct review in 2012, this court concluded that the trial court had erred by not securing a valid waiver of defendant's right to counsel, and defendant's case was remanded for yet another penalty-phase proceeding. Langley III ,
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR REGARDING JUDICIAL BIAS AND RECUSAL
We begin with defendant's contention that the assigned trial court judge should not have presided over his latest penalty-phase trial. On direct appeal, defendant has tendered more than 20 assignments of error that assert the penalty-phase trial judge was, or appeared to be, biased and that defendant's motions for her removal or recusal were erroneously denied. Of those assignments of error, we address the following four:
"Presiding Judge Rhoades erred in failing to 're-set' [defendant's] ORS 14.260 challenges upon this Court's vacating [defendant's] death sentence and remanding to the Circuit Court for resentencing[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 12.)
"Presiding Judge Rhoades erred by denying [defendant's] Motion to Disqualify Judge James pursuant to ORS 14.250 - 14.270 [.]" (Assignment of Error No. 7.)
"Presiding Judge Rhoades erred by denying [defendant's] Motion for Cause or to Recuse Judge James pursuant to ORS 14.210 [.]" (Assignment of Error No. 8.)
"Presiding Judge Rhoades erred in failing to grant [defendant's] Motion No. 39, in which [defendant] raised additional facts and information related to Judge James' conflict, bias and/or appearance of bias due to Judge James' former employment with the ODOJ and relative to the Gray , Rockenbrant and Langley- related matters[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 13.)
A. Procedural Background
On April 6, 2012, Judge Jamese Rhoades, Presiding Judge of the Marion County Circuit Court, filed a circuit court form titled Criminal Assignment Notice as part of the run-up to defendant's latest penalty phase proceeding. In that document, Judge Rhoades assigned Judge Mary Mertens James to preside over defendant's remanded sentencing trial. Before assuming their positions on the bench, both judges had worked as government lawyers: Judge Rhoades as an attorney in the Marion County District Attorney's Office and Judge James as an assistant attorney general in the Oregon Department of Justice's (DOJ) general counsel and trial divisions.
Defendant's newly appointed defense counsel apparently learned of that assignment on Monday, April 23, 2012, and, on Friday, April 27, 2012, filed two motions seeking Judge James's removal from the case. The first, captioned as "Motion for Change of Judge," cited as its authority ORS 14.250 to 14.270. In a nutshell, under certain conditions, those statutes prohibit a circuit court judge from hearing a matter when a party or attorney timely files a motion that establishes that the "party or attorney believes that such party or attorney cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before such judge. In such case the presiding judge for the judicial district shall forthwith transfer the cause, matter or proceeding to another judge of the court[.]" ORS 14.250(1).
Defendant's motions were heard by Presiding Judge Rhoades; defendant raised no objections to Judge Rhoades's participation in that proceeding based on her prior employment with the county prosecutor's office.
Two months later, at the first status conference on the record, Judge James invited further discussion concerning defendant's motions for her removal. At that time, Judge James acknowledged that she and Judge Rhoades had, at some point as part of the case assignment process, discussed whether she, Judge James, could impartially preside over defendant's case. Judge James then discussed her previous employment history with the DOJ, its lack of intersection with defendant's previous appeals, and why it would be inappropriate for her to recuse herself:
"I was an employee of the Oregon Department of Justice from October of 1983 to March of 1984, I believe-I meanof '94, and my assignments *** started out in general business and I then transferred to the civil trial division. I then became attorney in charge of labor and employment where I advised state agencies in labor and employment matters and represented agencies in administrative hearings and interest arbitration, that sort of thing. I did not have any contact with any of the divisions or units of the Department of Justice that may have been involved in any of the litigation involving Mr. Langley, had absolutely no contact with any of that[.]"
Judge James, therefore, declined to recuse herself.
In March 2014-nearly two years later and shortly before the commencement of defendant's new penalty-phase trial-defense counsel filed Motion No. 39, essentially a second request to disqualify Judge James that sought reconsideration of the previous disqualification denials. In the course of arguing that motion before Presiding Judge Rhoades, defense counsel acknowledged that the aim of the new motion was essentially the same as its predecessors, albeit more articulately stated and supported. Among other things, defendant argued for the first time that Judge James was required to recuse herself pursuant to the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct. Defendant relied on former Judicial Rule (JR) 2-106(A)(2) (2012),
"served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously was associated served during the association as a lawyer in the matter[.]"
Defense counsel also added several elements to his previous statutory argument for change of judge based on ORS 14.260. He argued that (1) the prohibition set out at ORS 14.260(5) against more than two applications for a change of judge had been "reset" with the advent of the new sentencing proceeding and (2) his original motion should be deemed timely because he had filed it at the first opportunity that he could, i.e ., the day that he was appointed to represent defendant.
"Regarding disqualification for cause, Judge Rhoades denies the motion, finding that Judge James did not have any association with and was not involved in any division or units or with any attorneys who were involved in this case while she was employed as an assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice.
"Regarding Defendant's motion for change of judge, Judge Rhoades denies the motion and finds that ORS 14.250 - .270 does not re-set at a new sentencing phase under ORS 163.150. Judge Rhoades also finds that the available challenges were applied to Judge Leggert and Judge Barber in 2004 and, thus, have been exhausted. Furthermore, the motion for change of judge was untimely, because Defendant filed his first motion, under ORS 14.250 -.270, on April 24, 2012, while the time to file had expired on or about April 7, 2012, within 24 hours of the appointment of Judge James to this case."
On May 20, 2014, as the new penalty-phase proceeding neared its end, defendant submitted yet another set of reconsideration motions seeking Judge James's removal, as well as transfer of the entire case to a judge appointed from outside the Marion County Circuit Court. Defendant also asked that his motion be sent to the Oregon Supreme Court for assignment of a conflict-free judge to hear it. In his motions, defendant again argued that Judge James should be removed because, during the time when she had worked for the DOJ in its trial and employment divisions, the DOJ had been extensively involved in litigating appellate matters related to defendant without a formal screening mechanism to separate Judge James from those matters. Defendant maintained that the absence of such screening now created an appearance of partiality. Defendant cited three specific instances of Judge James's past work as a DOJ lawyer or current activity as a judge that, in his view, established actual bias or conflict of interest: her representation of the state in an employment case brought by a state employee, Weinstein, whom the state later called as a witness in defendant's trial; her appearance in a case on behalf of the MacLaren School for Boys; and her association with
Defendant's motion was assigned to out-of-county Senior Judge Gregory Foote and scheduled to be heard later on the same day that it had been submitted. Defense counsel, however, requested a set-over of that hearing, arguing that, because his co-counsel had drafted the motion in question, defense counsel was unprepared. Judge Foote granted defendant's request and reset the matter to be heard the following day. Although the hearing on that motion had now been set over to May 22, 2014, defendant's penalty-phase trial had not been similarly postponed, and, on May 21, 2014, the parties presented closing arguments and the matter was submitted to the jury. The jury reached its verdict later that afternoon, concluding that defendant should be sentenced to death. The next day, Judge Foote heard the parties' arguments and denied defendant's recusal-related motion for reconsideration.
B. Change of Judge under ORS 14.250 through 14.270
We first address the assignments of error-numbers 7 and 12-related to defendant's unsuccessful motion for a change of judge under ORS 14.250 through 14.270. Under ORS 14.260(1), a change of judge can take place in any proceeding, based on a motion and affidavit setting out a good-faith belief that the party cannot receive a fair and impartial hearing before the judge in question; no specific ground for the movant's belief need be alleged. The statutes also contain several important restrictions. First, parties are prohibited from submitting "more than two applications in any cause, matter or proceeding under this section." ORS 14.260(6) ; ORS 14.270. Second, a motion to change judge under ORS 14.250 through 14.270 must be made at the time of the trial court judge's assignment to the case. ORS 14.270.
On review, defendant first contends that Judge Rhoades erred in ruling that, under those provisions, defendant's ability to change judges in the proceedings below had already been statutorily exhausted. Defendant argues that, pursuant to the principle announced by the Court of Appeals in
For purposes of this opinion, we may assume, without deciding, that defendant could seek a change of judge anew on remand, despite having utilized the change of judge procedure before the remand. Even so, the terms of the statute and our precedent lead us to conclude that the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion as untimely filed under ORS 14.270.
By its terms, ORS 14.270 currently provides a strict timeframe in which to move for a change of judge:
"An affidavit and motion for change of judge to hear the motions and demurrers or to try the case shall be made at the time of the assignment of the case to a judge for trial or for hearing upon a motion or demurrer. Oral notice of the intention to file the motion and affidavit shall be sufficient compliance with this section providing that the motion andaffidavit are filed not later than the close of the next judicial day."
(Emphasis added.)
An examination of the statutory framework within which the current time limitation in ORS 14.270 was put into place reveals that the legislature repeatedly has limited the ability of litigants to request a change of judge. See Stevens v. Czerniak ,
"In any county of the State of Oregon where there is a presiding judge who hears motions and demurrers and assigns cases to the other departments of the circuit court for trial, the affidavit and motion for change of judges to hear the motions and demurrers or to try the case may be made at any time, either before or after the assignment of the case for trial, and either before a hearing upon a motion or demurrer or before the commencement of trial of the said cause [.]"
Former ORS 14.270 (1955) (emphasis added). But in 1959, the legislature significantly shortened that timeframe by nullifying a defendant's ability to disqualify a judge if the judge had already ruled on any substantive request or demurrer in the case, other than a motion for extension of time. See Or. Laws 1959, ch. 667, § 2 (so stating). Ten years later, the legislature further shortened the applicable timeframe by adding to ORS 14.270 the text that currently requires motions to disqualify a judge to be made "at the time of the assignment of the case." See Or. Laws 1969, ch. 144, § 1 (amending statute as noted).
Those amendments to the statutory scheme do not run afoul of a party's rights to take action under the statutes. That is so, this court has noted, because the provisions of ORS 14.250 to 14.270 reflect an extension of "legislative
"provided parties and lawyers an opportunity, one that is not constitutionally or otherwise required, to remove a judge for personal, but not necessarily legal, reasons. We think it follows that it does not matter whether a party's lawyer was present at the time of the assignment, or even if a party was represented by counsel . In either case, the motion to remove a judge, or at least oral notice of intent to file such a motion, 'shall be made at the time of the assignment.' "
Id . at 207-08. Thus, in this case, although defendant had no appointed lawyer at the time that Judge James was assigned to preside over the penalty-phase retrial, defendant was required to file a motion for a change of judge no later than April 7, 2012, the day after Judge James was assigned.
This court acknowledged in Pena that the results of its holding may appear harsh. But, at the same time, the court concluded that such an outcome is required by the plain text of the ORS 14.270 :
"We are aware that our reading of the statute as making individual parties, whose legal counsel is absent (or nonexistent), responsible for giving a statutory notice or suffering the loss of an important statutory right seems harsh. However, the words of the statute compel that reading. It may be that the legislature assumed that counsel would be present at the pivotal moment, but the words of the statute do not contain that assumption explicitly, and do not require that counsel be present."
In addition to arguing that it was error not to change the trial judge under ORS 14.250 through 14.270, defendant also argues that his motions to disqualify Judge James for cause were erroneously denied below. Broadly speaking, defendant contends that, in addition to the fact that Judge James was previously employed as a DOJ attorney during the same period as the Gray and Rockenbrant murder prosecutions, the following factors militate for the general proposition that Judge James should have been disqualified for cause from hearing his case: (1) her previous representation of state officials in the Weinstein employment action, when the state called Weinstein as a witness in his trial; (2) her previous representation of the MacLaren School for Boys; and (3) her association with the Oregon State Police Foundation.
Defendant notes that, when Judge James was employed with the DOJ, the DOJ had connections to his murder trial. First, the DOJ represented the Mental Health Division, Oregon State Hospital, Oregon Department of Corrections, and MacLaren School for Boys, all of which had provided witnesses for the state in defendant's murder trials. Defendant contends that, during that period, Judge James had to have worked with other DOJ attorneys who appeared in matters stemming from defendant's murder cases. Second, the DOJ provided direct assistance to the Marion County District Attorney's Office in its prosecution of defendant. Defendant suggests that Judge James was among that group of attorneys, based on the appearance of her name in DOJ billing records that had been previously supplied to defendant. When defendant subsequently sought the names of DOJ attorneys who had specifically assisted in his prosecution, the DOJ responded that it was unable to locate specific documents directly responsive to defendant's request, but noted that "many attorneys" whose names were contained in the previous list also had performed services at the request of the Marion County District Attorney's Office. Finally, defendant notes that the DOJ provided representation for the state in other matters during defendant's direct appeals of his convictions.
Defendant also points to Judge James's participation in a 1990 employment action brought by Weinstein, who had run the Correctional Treatment Program at the state hospital during the time in which defendant had participated in that program, against his supervisors. More than 20 years later, during defendant's latest penalty-phase trial, Weinstein testified as a witness for the state, after which Judge James advised the parties that she had a vague recollection of being involved as an attorney in a civil matter involving the witness. Following that disclosure, neither party queried Judge James further concerning her role in that case or raised an objection at that time. Defendant nevertheless later argued that James's work on the Weinstein case had created an actual conflict because the parties involved in that matter were also involved as witnesses in the criminal case against defendant or in investigations related to the wrongful-death actions that followed defendant's murders.
The Weinstein employment case arose following defendant's murder of Gray and Rockenbrant. In July 1989, after Weinstein's supervisors reassigned him and gave him different duties, Weinstein filed an employment action against those individuals. As state employees, Weinstein's supervisors were represented by Judge James in her capacity as a DOJ attorney at that time. Thus, Judge James had actively opposed Weinstein, on behalf of her clients.
In the complaint initiating his employment action, Weinstein had alleged that "the act of reassigning him to other duties was motivated by his discussions with members of the Oregon legislature and expressions of his opinions." Despite the text of Weinstein's complaint, defendant contends that Weinstein's reassignment had to have
With regard to Judge James's representation of the MacLaren School for Boys, defendant primarily relies on a PACER printout that was not part of the record below. The printout shows that, in a civil rights matter captioned Wentz v. Grubbs, et al. , Judge James appeared once to file an affidavit in support of a stipulated motion for an extension of time. Defendant apparently now seeks to link that contact between Judge James and the MacLaren School for Boys to the records from defendant's tenure as a MacLaren inmate admitted in evidence at defendant's penalty phase proceeding. Defendant contends that Judge James had been obliged to reveal her MacLaren connection.
Finally, defendant argues that Judge James's association with the State Police Foundation as a board member is relevant to recusal and should have been revealed below. Defendant notes that the state police (1) constituted the lead investigating agency in defendant's cases and (2) assisted the Marion County District Attorney's Office in its prosecution of defendant.
Based on Judge James's roles set out above, defendant now contends that it was error not to remove Judge James from his case (or for her not to recuse herself) under ORS 14.210(1) and Codes of Judicial Conduct. Specifically, defendant relies on ORS 14.210(1)(a) and (d), which, respectively, expressly prohibit judges from acting in matters where the judge "is a party to or directly interested in the action, suit or proceeding" or "has been attorney in the action, suit or proceeding for any party." Defendant also relies on disqualification provisions from earlier versions of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct and of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct in effect when Judge James was first assigned to preside over his penalty-phase trial.
We review the ruling on defendant's motion to disqualify Judge James based on ORS 14.210(1) for legal error. See
Yet in this case, there is no dispute that Judge James was not an attorney of record in the appeals that defendant had pursued and that the DOJ had opposed on behalf of the state. And, when Presiding Judge Rhoades denied defendant's motion seeking reconsideration of his motions to remove Judge James as the trial judge in March 2014, she did not find that Judge James had acted as an attorney in defendant's criminal cases. Rather, Judge James explained that she had had no connections with the prosecution in defendant's cases, and Judge Rhoades found that "Judge James did not have any association with and was not involved in any division or units or with any attorneys who were involved in this case while she was employed as an assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice." In arguing to the contrary, defendant arranges and then connects disparate points to hypothesize that Judge James's status as a former DOJ employment attorney for the Oregon State Hospital and its supervisors (in Weinstein's case) and for the MacLaren School for Boys (in a motion for extension of time)-and later as a State Police Foundation Board member-inexorably led to contact with parts of defendant's aggravated murder case. The difficulty with that proposition, however, is that the objective evidence
As noted earlier, ORS 14.210(1)(a) and (d) require judicial disqualification if a judge was "a party to or directly interested in" or "has been an attorney in" the action or proceeding. We conclude that the record supports Presiding Judge Rhoades's finding and that defendant's arguments based on ORS 14.210(1)(a) and (d) are simply unsupported by the evidence. Nothing in the record shows that, during Judge James's previous employment with the DOJ, she acted as an attorney in defendant's prosecution or the appeals that followed, nor is there any evidence that she otherwise possessed a direct interest in defendant's cases.
2. Code of Judicial Conduct
In arguing that the presiding judge should remove Judge James from his case in 2014, defendant relied for the first time on provisions of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct and the ABA Model Code of Judicial Code, citing versions in effect when Judge James was assigned as the trial judge. Specifically, he relied on former JR 2-106(A)(1) and (2) (2012) of the Oregon Code, which provided:
"(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality reasonably may be questioned, including but not limited to instances when
"(1) the judge has a bias or prejudice concerning a party or has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
"(2) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously was associated served during the association as a lawyer in the matter, or the judge or the lawyer has been a material witness in the matter[.]"
Defendant also cited ABA Model Code, Rule 2.11(A)(6)(a) (2011), which, as set out by defendant, similarly provided:
"(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality mightreasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
"* * * * *
"(6) The judge:
"(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association[.]"
On review, defendant contends that those code provisions and the facts establish that Judge James was disqualified from serving as the trial judge and should have disqualified herself because her impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Before addressing the substance of defendant's arguments, we note that, when defendant sought removal of Judge James in 2014 based on the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct, JR 2-106(A)(1) had been superseded by a new version of the code that went into effect in December 2013. The new version of the rule was Rule 3.10(A)(5). That rule broadly requires-like its predecessor-that judges disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which the judge has previously served as a lawyer in the matter they are presiding over. But, with regard to a judge's previous association with other lawyers involved in the matter, the new rule significantly clarifies the permissible metes and bounds of the judge's involvement as a governmental lawyer:
"A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
"* * * * *
"(5) The judge:
"(a) Served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or, unless paragraph (5)(b) applies , was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;
"(b) Served in governmental employment and, in such capacity, participated personally either as a lawyer or as a supervising lawyer in the matter in controversy, or participated personally as a public official concerning the matter,or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the matter[.]"
Rule 3.10(A)(5) (emphasis added). We need not decide which version of the code applies, however, because the result we reach is the same under either version.
Turning to the merits of defendant's code-based arguments, we consider first whether Judge James was actually biased and was required to recuse herself because she had personal knowledge of disputed facts in defendant's case, JR 2-106(A)(1), or had previously served as lawyer in that matter, JR 2-106(A)(2). We have long viewed the judiciary's duty to cultivate and maintain an image of propriety as a boundary that must not be violated if the public is to have continued confidence in the workings of our courts:
"The stake of the public in a judiciary that is both honest in fact and honest in appearance is profound. A democratic society that, like ours, leaves many of its final decisions, both constitutional and otherwise, to its judiciary is totally dependent on the scrupulous integrity of that judiciary."
In re Fadeley ,
"There is, in the context of in-person solicitation of campaign funds, a certainty of an appearance of impropriety and a high degree of likelihood of overreaching or undue influence by the requesting judge. The state has a fundamental interest in avoiding those consequences, an interest that it has vindicated by promulgating Canon 7 B(7) [expressly providing that judges may not 'personally solicit campaign contributions']."
Id . at 568,
Here, however, that degree of certainty is missing from the factual underpinnings of defendant's arguments regarding disqualification for cause. Like the rule of judicial
We next consider defendant's contention that Judge James was disqualified from serving as the trial judge based on an appearance of bias by virtue of her association with the DOJ lawyers who represented the state in defendant's criminal appeals. See JR 2-106(A)(2) (2012) ("a lawyer with whom the judge previously was associated served during the association as a lawyer in the matter"); Rule 3.10(A)(5)(a) ("unless paragraph (5)(b) applies, was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter"). We conclude that the association provision was not applied as broadly to former government lawyers in 2012 as defendant contends and that the new rule in effect in March 2014 clarified that aspect of the rule.
As the text of Rule 3.10(A)(5) now makes clear, the associational prohibition is subject to an exception for government lawyers. Although judges who were previously non-governmental attorneys can, indeed, be required in certain circumstances to disqualify themselves from cases based solely on employment-related associations that they held before assuming the bench, judges previously employed as government attorneys can be required to do so only if the judges had, in their prior capacities, personally participated as lawyers, supervising attorneys, or public officials in the cases that they are assigned to hear or if they had, while in those positions, publicly expressed their opinions concerning the merits of those matters. Although those tenets were first expressed as Rule 3.10(A)(5) in December 2013, the notion
Now, as then, that observation remains instructive. For purposes of defendant's argument that Presiding Judge Rhoades should have determined that Judge James was disqualified (or that Judge James should have recused herself) in light of the Code of Judicial Conduct, we decline to view every former government lawyer employed by the DOJ who now sits on the bench as having had a constructive association with every other DOJ lawyer based solely on the fact of their common employment with the DOJ. Here, that means that, even under the associational provision in the 2012 version of the code, for defendant to have prevailed on his motion seeking Judge James's disqualification, defendant had to establish that Judge James personally had participated as a lawyer in some aspect of defendant's criminal cases. As already noted in our discussion above, however, defendant has failed to do so. As a result, we hold that defendant's arguments for disqualification based on the Code of Judicial Conduct, either under the rule in the older version of the Code or in the current version, are not well-taken.
D. Constitutional Arguments for Disqualification
Having rejected defendant's statutory and code-based arguments regarding judicial
According to defendant, the rights inherent in those constitutional provisions inure to criminal defendants through the protective disqualification provisions of ORS 14.210, and, by failing to adhere to its requirements, Judge James and Presiding Judge Rhoades violated his constitutional rights. Defendant relies on the same evidence and hypotheses described earlier in the context of his statutory and code-based arguments. As this opinion has already recognized, however, the record supports Presiding Judge Rhoades's finding below that "Judge James did not have any association with and was not involved in any division or units or with any attorneys who were involved in this case while she was employed as an assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice." That finding undermines defendant's contrary argument that the record reflects evidence of actual bias corresponding with the proscriptions set out at ORS 14.210 and renders his constitutional arguments as unavailing as his statutory arguments.
In addition to his contention that Judge James was actually biased, defendant also relies on judicial disqualification by virtue of an appearance of bias, such that disqualification of Judge James was required as a matter of law under Article I, section 11. This court has yet to analyze the concept of apparent bias through the lens of the Oregon Constitution, and defendant does not offer any independent standard for evaluating whether the circumstances present
As for defendant's Due Process Clause argument, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. ,
First, the Court highlighted cases in which a judge's financial interest in the outcome of a matter, although less than what would have been considered personal and direct at common law, nevertheless required recusal based on the perception that those interests might tempt the judge to skew the outcome of a case for one party or the other. Id . at 876-79,
Next, the Court discussed the narrow range of so-called one-person grand jury cases, matters in which the appearance of a conflict of interest had required judicial recusal because a judge-after encountering misconduct in the courtroom, usually involving perjury or contempt-went on to criminally charge the perpetrator and then preside over his or her trial. Id . at 880-81,
Finally, the Court discussed the unique circumstances requiring recusal that had emerged from Caperton itself. Caperton had begun as a contract dispute in which a West Virginia circuit court had entered a $50 million judgment against the defendant in the action, the A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (Massey). Before appealing that judgment to the West Virginia Supreme Court, Massey's CEO contributed or made expenditures totaling approximately $3 million to help the electoral campaign of an attorney running to unseat one of the court's then-incumbent justices. The attorney won his election and, as a newly minted justice slated to hear Massey's appeal, denied the opposing party's motion seeking the new justice's recusal-a motion based on the perception of conflict created by Massey's sizable financial assistance to the new justice's judicial campaign. The
After granting certiorari, the United States Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Court held that, because Massey had appeared on appeal before the justice whom Massey's CEO had helped to elect to West Virginia's high court through significant campaign contributions and expenditures-which were made at a time when it was foreseeable that Massey would seek review before that tribunal-recusal had been required as a matter of due process. The rule articulated by the Court was straightforward:
"[T]here is a serious risk of actual bias-based on objective and reasonable perceptions-when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."
Caperton ,
The situations discussed in Caperton , in which "the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,"
There is, in short, nothing here approaching a reasonable and objective perception from which one could or should extrapolate a constitutionally intolerable risk of judicial bias in this matter. We therefore reject defendant's due process argument and the general proposition advanced by defendant that Judge James was required as a matter of law to have been recused for cause below.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR REGARDING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS
In Oregon cases involving the death penalty, ORS 163.150(1)(b) requires, at the close of the penalty phase, that the trial court submit the following four issues to the jury for its consideration:
"(A) Whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that death of the deceased or another would result;
"(B) Whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society;
"(C) If raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased; and
"(D) Whether the defendant should receive a death sentence."
Those issues are known colloquially as "the four questions." The state is obliged to prove an affirmative case regarding the first three of those statutory inquiries beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden of proof attached to the fourth question. ORS 163.150(1)(d).
The next group of assignments of error that we address concerns the second question set out above. As part of its case addressing the second question-essentially a question of defendant's future dangerousness-the state advised the penalty-phase trial court and defendant that it
"When the jurors are asked to determine whether the defendant poses a threat to society, obviously we have to explain what society or societies we might be talking about[;] that could simply only ever include prison for this defendant[.]"
The evidence that the state sought to present, however, was not specific to defendant. Moving to exclude that evidence, defendant argued that the absence of a specific nexus between it and his own personal future dangerousness had rendered the evidence irrelevant and prejudicial. As part of that motion, defendant did not assert that incarceration would mitigate his future dangerousness.
Defendant's motion was denied, and Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP) Assistant Superintendent Brandon Kelly began his testimony by describing Oregon's prison system, prison visiting areas and various ways that contraband passes from visitors to general population inmates, and the day-today experience in the prisons, including the hierarchy of inmate status and associated acts of violence
The testimony concerning the prison environment supplemented a plethora of other evidence presented by the state specific to defendant and his future dangerousness. That evidence included accounts of defendant's previous crimes, testimony from individuals whom he had brutalized while either still a minor or during his previous terms of incarceration, as well as statements taken from defendant's own journal, in which he described his criminal behavior as "part of my power and control."
Defendant has asserted seven assignments of error that address some aspect of the penalty-phase trial court's failure to grant his motion to exclude evidence relating to prison society. Of those seven assignments of error, we address the following two:
"The sentencing-only remand trial court erred in allowing the State to admit irrelevant evidence, specifically, testimony, photos and a PowerPoint presentation regarding dangerous contraband, escapes, assaults, murders and other non-statutory generalized aggravation evidence not specific to [defendant] alleged to have occurred within the ODOC[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 26.)
"The sentencing-only remand trial court erred in failing to undertake a probative value versus prejudice analysis of the State's proffered non-statutory generalized aggravation evidence not specific to [defendant] prior to it being admitted[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 27.)
Defendant sums up his position regarding those assignments of error by broadly contending that the
"fact that the environment the State itself creates, maintains and in which it places a defendant, is volatile is notindicative of that defendant's propensity to commit future acts of violence. Absent some connection with [defendant] personally and individually, the criminal behavior of others housed within the ODOC should not be able to be used to negate the mitigating value of the past 27-plus years of non-violence on the part of [defendant] while he has been housed in various locations within ODOC custody."
Defendant thus contends that the evidence portraying the prison environment as dangerous was inadmissible-either as irrelevant or as unfairly prejudicial.
As an initial matter, in accordance with State v. Sparks ,
"evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
In terms of evidentiary admissibility, that standard represents a "low bar," State v. Davis ,
" 'The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of *** considerations [set forth in] Rule 403, rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views ofreal estate, murder weapons and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission.' "
Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 401.02, Art. IV, 153 (6th ed. 2013) (quoting 1981 Conference Committee to OEC 401 ) (ellipses and brackets in original; emphasis added). See also State v. Williams ,
Sparks establishes the relevancy of the future dangerousness evidence that defendant now challenges on review. In Sparks -a case involving the aggravated murder of a 12-year-old girl-defense counsel indicated at the opening of the penalty-phase proceeding that he intended to dispute the notion of the defendant's future dangerousness by showing that the defendant would not pose a danger once incarcerated within a prison population of adult males. Later, over defendant's relevance objections, as part of the state's evidence addressing the question of future dangerousness, the prosecutor highlighted the opportunities for violence within prison society by presenting photographic displays of knives, drug paraphernalia, and other contraband confiscated from inmates at the Oregon State Penitentiary, as well as testimony from a prison official recounting various violent incidents perpetrated within the prison system, both by gangs and individual inmates. Id . at 320,
"In our view, defendant's argument is incorrect because it assumes that [the prison official's] testimony and the challenged photographs solely pertained to the potential dangerousness of other prison inmates. To the contrary, that evidence described part of the violent characteristics of the institution in which defendant would be confined in the immediate future. Evidence of that violent institutional environment can assist jurors in understanding whether defendant would face a significant risk in prison of involvement in violent acts against others and, perhaps, the use of weapons that the environment affords. Thus, the state's evidence, properly understood, does pertain to defendant, and helps the jury understand, at least to some degree, the probability that defendant willcommit criminal acts of violence in the future."
Id . at 324,
In a nutshell, the holding from Sparks establishes two tenets that affect the issue of future dangerousness in capital cases. First, evidence regarding the violent characteristics of prison society directly pertains to defendants who potentially face the death penalty, insofar as that evidence demonstrates characteristics of the institution in which they will presumably live out their days. Second, that evidence is relevant to a defendant's future "threat to society," because it tends to show that a defendant's risk of violent interactions with others is significant, due to the violent nature of the prison environment itself.
Defendant, however, contends that Sparks does not control. Sparks is distinguishable, defendant argues, because
However, the state in this case articulated a theory regarding the relevance of the evidence to its proof of prison society, as approved in Sparks , and, in assessing relevance, it does not matter that defendant had not contested the fact that the prison environment offers opportunities for inmates in the general prison population to commit acts of violence against others. Following Sparks , defendant's argument concerning irrelevance of the evidence is not well-taken.
Defendant also argues that, even if relevant, the evidence of violence in prison society was outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Under OEC 403, a court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. That rule provides:
"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
As used in OEC 403, the term "unfair prejudice" does not refer to evidence that is simply harmful to the opponent's case; indeed, all evidence presented at trial is intended to prejudice one side or the other, i.e ., to increase the likelihood that the adverse party will not prevail. State v. Lyons ,
According to defendant, the state's prison-environment evidence was unfairly prejudicial because jurors may have failed to make an individualized determination of defendant's future dangerousness that was based on his own prison record, opting instead to infer from the state's evidence that defendant would pose a danger simply because he was part of the so-called "prisoner class." Defendant's theory that the jury could have considered that evidence and then drawn inferences unrelated to the state's actual evidentiary aims is, without more, insufficient to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion
Sparks establishes that evidence of a prison's "violent institutional environment can assist jurors in understanding whether [a] defendant would face a significant risk in prison of involvement in violent acts." Sparks ,
IV. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR REGARDING DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S FOURTH-QUESTION LIMITING INSTRUCTION
For capital defendants whose crimes occurred before 1995, fourth-question determinations are governed by considerations that predate the present statutory scheme set out at ORS 163.153. As a result, we begin this section with a brief primer on the evolution of the fourth question in death penalty cases, to better frame the assignments of error that defendant now raises in the context of the trial court's refusal to give the jury an instruction limiting its consideration of aggravating evidence.
A. Legal Context
The central inquiry encompassed by the fourth jury question as articulated in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) -whether a defendant should be sentenced to death-has been part of Oregon's death-penalty sentencing statutes since 1989, although it obtained its present text following amendments made in 1991.
In 1995, the legislature amended ORS 163.150(1)(a) to provide that, in addition to evidence of mitigating circumstances, relevant aggravating evidence could also be presented to a jury as part of the fourth-question determination. See ORS 163.150(1)(a) (1995) (providing that, in sentencing proceedings for aggravated murder, "evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence including, but not limited to, victim impact-evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim or the impact of the crime on the victim's family and any aggravating and mitigating evidence relevant to the [fourth question issue in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) ]" (emphasis added) ). Two years later, the legislature amended the statutory jury instructions that accompanied the fourth question to mirror those 1995 amendments. See ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) (1997) (directing juries to answer the fourth question in the negative "if, after considering any aggravating evidence and any mitigating evidence concerning any aspect of the defendant's character or background ... one or more of the jurors believe that the defendant should not receive a death sentence" (emphasis added) ).
In 2004, however, this court was called upon to explore the impact of the fourth-question amendments described above on capital defendants whose crimes predated those changes. In State v. Guzek ,
B. Defendant's Assignments of Error
Early in the pretrial part of his sentencing proceeding, defendant submitted Motion No. 17 to the penalty-phase trial court. He sought, in part, to preemptively exclude, on ex post facto grounds, any fourth-question aggravating evidence otherwise admissible under the 1995 and 1997 amendments.
In January 2014, Judge James granted that request, noting in the process that her
"understanding is that the State does not intend to offer any aggravating evidence with respect to issue 4, that the state is restrained in its presentation of aggravating evidence as to the first three questions, and the Court will not allow aggravating evidence with respect to the fourth question to be considered and the jury would be so instructed."
Several days later, Judge James clarified that the best way to ensure that the jury understood "what evidence is relevant to what question" would be for the parties and the court to collectively find an appropriate jury instruction:
"I think you all appreciate the need to make sure that the aggravating factors are not factors that the jury is asked to consider on the fourth question. But certainly evidence of aggravating factors is permissible in the other three questions. And so the way to address that so that a jury understands what evidence is relevant to what question isone that we will work through and find an instruction that works."
Apparently, the parties did not provide a jointly requested instruction to the court. In May 2014, defendant requested that the court give the following limiting instruction to the jury:
"There has been argument and evidence submitted in this case regarding the violent and criminal conduct of individuals (incarcerated and otherwise) other than that of [defendant]. You are hereby instructed not to consider evidence or argument concerning the conduct of anyone other than [defendant] in your determination of the 4th question, whether the defendant should receive a death sentence."
The court, however, refused to give defendant's proposed limiting instruction. Instead, the court gave the following instructions to the jury regarding the fourth question:
"The fourth question asked by the law is, Shall a death sentence be imposed? The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to this fourth question. Regarding this question neither side bears any burden of proof. The question calls for a discretionary determination to be made by each of you based on the evidence.
"If all 12 jurors do not agree that the answer to this question is yes, then you must answer this question no. Even though you have answered yes to the first three questions, you're not required to answer yes to the fourth question. Any one of you has the power and discretion to choose life imprisonment as the appropriate sentence.
"You must answer this question no if after considering any mitigating evidence concerning any aspect of the defendant's character or background or any circumstances of the offense or any victim impact evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim or the impact of the crime on the victim's family, one or more of you believe that the defendant should not receive a death sentence."
The trial judge explained her reasoning for rejecting defendant's proposed jury instruction from the bench:
"I think we've captured the legal standard in Oregon adequately. And after reading the whole instruction I'malso comfortable that it does direct the jury to consider mitigation evidence in a pretty explicit way without equivocation. And I don't want to introduce any equivocation into the instruction."
Defendant asserts six assignments of error on review, all of which address some aspect of the penalty-phase trial court's denial of defendant's fourth-question limiting instruction. Of those six assignments of error, we address the following three:
"Judge James erred in refusing to provide the jurors with [defendant's] requested limiting instruction[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 33.)
"Judge James erred in refusing to adhere to her pretrial assertions, rulings, and orders that she would specifically preclude the jurors' consideration of non-statutory generalized aggravation evidence not specific to [defendant] in their determination of the 4th question thereby contravening [defendant's] rights to notice and due process[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 35.)
"Judge James erred in failing to specifically preclude the jurors' consideration of non-statutory generalized aggravation evidence not specific to [defendant] in their determination of the 4th question in contravention of Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and this Court's holding in Guzek III[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 36.)
The threshold premise underlying those assignments of error is that, under the facts set out above, Judge James and the prosecution "reneged on their pretrial representations and assurances" about giving a limiting instruction concerning the fourth question. As a result, defendant argues, Judge James's failure to fulfill her promises in that regard constituted reversible error, insomuch as that failure (1) deprived defendant of notice and due process, which in turn interfered with defendant's constitutional rights to adequate and effective assistance of counsel, and (2) violated this court's ex post facto prohibition against applying aggravation evidence to the fourth question in homicide cases arising before 1995. For the latter point, defendant relies on Guzek III ,
C. Analysis
We turn first to the proposition that Judge James provided assurances or promises to defendant through her January 2014 statements concerning aggravating evidence and the fourth question. Generally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to reconsider its earlier rulings, State v. Guzek ,
"times when a judge gives his or her word so directly that, absent unusual and unexpected subsequent developments, the judge must be said to have exercised the judge's power at the time that the judge makes the statement, even before the judge signs a document memorializing that promise."
In light of that statement in Orians , the inquiry now before us is this: Did Judge James so directly promise to provide a limiting instruction precluding juror consideration of "non-statutory generalized aggravation evidence" regarding the fourth question that it constituted an unalterable exercise of her judicial power? For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the answer to that question is "no."
In Orians -a mandamus matter involving the civil compromise provisions of ORS 135.703 to 135.709
" 'So, the good news * * * is that if you are able to pay off [the victim] in toto, then I will go ahead and dismiss this case . I'll set it over for 90 days, and that way the victim can be paid and you can be assured of a dismissal .' "
In contrast here, the statements that defendant proffers as examples of an equivalent judicial promise in this case cannot be viewed as similarly unambiguous and unequivocal. The statement in Orians was marked by a promissory-like pronouncement that was susceptible to only one meaning: "you can be assured of a dismissal." By contrast, the statements at issue here contain no such promissory inclinations and are open to different interpretations. Specifically, Judge James's observation that she would not "allow aggravating evidence with respect to the fourth question to be considered and the jury would be so instructed," can be construed several ways. It might be, as defendant appears to argue, that Judge James intended to cabin the jurors' individual thought processes vis-à-vis the fourth question by instructing them on what they could not think about in the course of answering that question. Alternatively, Judge James may have meant to
Of those two views, the latter appears the most likely to be correct, given that Judge James's statements arose against the backdrop of a pretrial ex post facto motion to exclude evidence tendered by defendant to avoid exactly such a scenario. Our conclusion finds further support in Judge James's subsequent comments-set out above-regarding the importance of ensuring that the jury understood "what evidence is relevant to what question." Not only do those comments demonstrate that jury instructions regarding the fourth question remained a work in progress at the time ("we will work through and find an instruction that works"), they also show that the penalty-phase trial court was focused less on how the jury would process the relevant evidence presented to it and more on what relevant evidence the jury could be properly presented with (noting the "need to make sure that the aggravating factors are not factors that the jury is asked to consider on the fourth question" (emphasis added) ). In light of Orians , and the fact that (1) alternative meanings can be attributed to the statements at issue here and (2) those statements lack any overtly promissory impetus, there is insufficient evidence on this record from which we can conclude that an unequivocal promise was made below to provide the jury with defendant's requested limiting instruction.
Defendant further contends that, in any event, promise or not, the penalty-phase trial court's failure to specifically instruct jurors not to consider "non-statutory, generalized aggravation evidence" that was not specific to defendant violated the ex post facto holding in Guzek III . A proper understanding of this court's decision in Guzek III is a prerequisite to ascertaining whether an ex post facto violation did, indeed, take place below.
In Guzek III , this court vacated the defendant's death sentence and remanded for new sentencing proceedings based on the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a true-life sentencing option.
In taking up that issue, this court noted, in part, that the 1995 amendment had effectively removed two evidentiary limitations that had previously favored capital sentencing defendants, namely, that all evidence supporting a sentence of death must (1) be limited in its relevance to either the first three statutory questions or as rebuttal to mitigation evidence, and (2) when applied to the first three statutory questions, implicate the highest possible burden of proof. Id . at 438,
In doing so, however, this court reiterated the relevancy principles that had previously applied to evidence supporting a death sentence:
"Any determination of the relevance of the state's aggravating evidence against [the] defendant therefore must be in relation to the first three statutory questions set out in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C) or in relation to rebuttal of any particular mitigating evidence offered by defendant."
Id . at 438-39,
"determine if such evidence is relevant and, therefore, generally admissible under ORS 163.150(1)(b)(B) (or under the other statutory questions on which the state bears the burden of proof), or whether the evidence qualifies solely as 'any aggravating evidence' not relevant to the first three questions and not rebutting any particular mitigating evidence offered by defendant."
Id . at 439 n. 12,
In short, for defendants whose capital crimes predated the statutory inclusion of aggravating evidence as a factor in fourth question determinations, our ex post facto holding in Guzek III reimposed several constraints on the penalty-phase process. First, it prohibited trial courts from admitting into evidence aggravating facts relevant solely to the fourth question.
Neither of those fact scenarios, however, is present in this case. The penalty-phase trial court did not permit aggravating facts relevant only to the fourth question to be presented to the jury, nor did the trial court instruct the jury to consider such facts as part of its fourth-question determination. Indeed, by expressly granting defendant's motion to exclude any fourth-question aggravating evidence otherwise admissible under the 1995 and 1997 amendments, the trial court took pains to ensure the opposite outcome below. As a result, the argument that failure to give defendant's requested limiting instruction regarding the fourth question constituted an ex post facto violation under the holding in Guzek III is simply incorrect.
That said, where evidence is admissible for one purpose and not another, it is generally error-albeit not necessarily prejudicial error-for a trial court to refuse a limiting instruction that would minimize the jury's use of that evidence for the inadmissible purpose. State v. Reyes ,
Here, the jury instruction ultimately given by the penalty-phase trial court directed that mitigating evidence and victim-impact evidence
A. Background and Assignments of Error
In June 1989, approximately two years after defendant murdered Anne Gray, the United States Supreme Court decided Penry v. Lynaugh ,
At the time, Oregon's death penalty instructions had been based on the same Texas statutory scheme applied in Penry . Compare Penry ,
In an effort to bring Oregon's statutes into line with the Supreme Court's decision in Penry , shortly after that case was decided, the Oregon Legislative Assembly added a fourth inquiry to the state's death penalty provisions in July 1989. That text provided:
"If constitutionally required, considering the extent to which the defendant's character and background and the circumstances of the offense may reduce the defendant's moral culpability or blameworthiness for the crime, whether a sentence of death be imposed."
ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) (1989). At the same time, the legislature also added the following to the death penalty statutes:
"If a reviewing court finds prejudicial error in the sentencing proceeding only, the court may set aside the sentence of death and remand the case to the trial court. No error in the sentencing proceeding shall result in reversal of the defendant's conviction for aggravated murder."
ORS 163.150(5)(a) (1989).
One month later, in August 1989, this court took up State v. Wagner ,
"the statutory authority under ORS 163.150(1), (and the constitutional responsibility if the facts require it), to submit to the sentencing jury a fourth question, in response to which the sentencing jury may spare a defendant from the death penalty[.]"
In remanding for resentencing, this court also referred to the newly amended provisions of ORS 163.150. Id . at 17,
" 'Should defendant receive a death sentence? You should answer this question 'no' if you find that there is any aspect of defendant's character or background, or any circumstances of the offense, that you believe would justify a sentence less than death.' "
Id . at 19,
With that history as background, we turn now to the facts underlying defendant's assignments of error regarding the capital-sentencing processes put in place after Penry . In March 2014, defendant presented the penalty-phase trial
Although defendant's motion was denied, he nevertheless submitted a proposed jury instruction to the trial court in May 2014 that provided that the state was, as a matter of law, responsible for proving the fourth question "beyond a reasonable doubt." Like the motion that had preceded it, defendant's proposed instruction was also denied. The instruction that the trial court gave to the jury regarding the fourth question stated, in relevant part, that "the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to this fourth question."
Defendant now asserts six assignments of error on review, all of which take issue in some way with the post- Penry capital sentencing process that was applied below in this case. Of those six assignments of error, we address the following three:
"The statute in effect at the time of the crimes was facially and as-applied unconstitutional, therefore, the sentencing-only remand trial court erred in applying the post- Penry I amendments to the Oregon death penalty sentencing scheme to [defendant.]" (Assignment of Error No. 53.)
"The sentencing-only remand trial court erred in denying [defendant's] proposed jury instruction requiring the State to prove an affirmative answer to the 4th question-should the defendant receive a death sentence-beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights under Article I, sections 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 33, of the Oregon Constitution, and Article I, section 10, and amendments V, VI, VIII, and XIV (due processand equal protection), to the United States Constitution." (Assignment of Error No. 52.)
"The sentencing-only remand trial court erred in failing to apply the requisite beyond a reasonable doubt standard to the 4th question, which, as applied to [defendant], served as a sentencing enhancer and, therefore, must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt[.]" (Assignment of Error No. 54.)
B. Constitutionality of ORS 163.150 (1989)
With regard to the first of those assignments of error, number 53, defendant essentially asserts that, as a pre- Penry capital defendant in a post- Penry world, the death penalty had simply not been a constitutional option at the time of his crimes, given the absence of any provision for the consideration of mitigating evidence by the sentencing jury. Consequently, defendant argues that application of the fourth question in his case interposed a new rule that contravened ex post facto state and federal constitutional protections by subjecting him to a harsher penalty than he could have otherwise received at the time he committed his crimes. Defendant further contends that, when this court decided Wagner II , it lacked both statutory and constitutional authority to expand the then-existing three-factor capital sentencing scheme previously approved by voters in 1984. To support that proposition, defendant relies on Iselin v. United States ,
Defendant's arguments are both founded on the same premise, namely, that for capital crimes committed before 1989, Penry and Wagner II each imposed new conditions regarding the consideration of mitigating evidence where none had existed before, Penry at the federal level and Wagner II at the state level. In the absence of those conditions, defendant asserts, imposition of the death penalty in Oregon had not been a constitutional option when defendant committed his crimes. That premise, however, is incorrect.
In response, the Supreme Court noted that, when the defendant's conviction became final, its own precedents
This court tacitly reached a similar conclusion in Wagner II . Wagner II became necessary after the United
In the analysis that followed, the court drew on two broad avenues of statutory inquiry to address the issue. As to whether ORS 163.150 (1987) allowed the introduction of all constitutionally relevant mitigation evidence for the jury's consideration, the court began by drawing on its decision in Wagner I , noting that, in that earlier decision, it had previously construed ORS 163.150 (1987) to mean that (1) capital defendants must be permitted to introduce any competent evidence relevant to mitigation on any of the three issues, Wagner II ,
This court's examination of former ORS 163.150 (1987) in Wagner II led it to conclude that the terms of that statute were consistent with the proposition that trial courts were authorized to admit the broadest range of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing cases and that capital defendants could, in turn, argue to the jury for a life sentence based on that evidence. Wagner II,
In the course of addressing that second question, the court first acknowledged that (1) trial courts had a responsibility to thoroughly instruct jurors regarding the law controlling their deliberations and (2) that responsibility was mandated by long-standing statutory sources. The court noted, for example, that ORCP 58 B(6) and 59 B-rules of civil procedure otherwise made applicable to criminal proceedings by ORS 136.330 -respectively provided that "[t]he court * * * shall charge the jury" and, "[i]n charging the jury, the court shall state to them all matters of law necessary for their information in giving their verdict." Wagner II,
" 'well-established rule in this state that a party litigant is entitled to have the court instruct the jury upon his theory of the case as formulated in properly requested instructions which correctly state the law, and which are founded upon the pleadings and the proof in the case.' "
Id . at 15,
Combining those observations with an examination of ORS 163.150 (1987) as it pertained to mitigating evidence and the direction provided by the Supreme Court in Penry , this court summarized the following points from its analysis:
"We are thus left with circumstances in which (1) the federal constitution requires admission of all mitigating evidence; (2) the statute permits admission of such evidence; (3) the federal constitution requires a mechanism for meaningful consideration of all mitigating evidence, including evidence beyond the scope of the statutory questions; (4) the statute permits arguments by defendant for life based on all mitigating evidence; (5) the trial court is obliged to instruct the sentencing jury on all necessary matters of law; and (6) defendant is entitled to an instruction that, notwithstanding an affirmative answer to the statutory questions, the jury may conclude that mitigating evidence justifies imposition of a life sentence."
The principle that we draw from our discussion of Wagner II is this: With regard to mitigating evidence in capital sentencing proceedings held before Penry and Wagner II , Oregon law did not prohibit a capital defendant from presenting mitigating evidence to the jury or having that jury rely upon such evidence to spare the defendant's life. Thus, the proposition advanced here by defendant that those rights did not exist before Penry does not square with Wagner II and the Supreme Court's decision in Jurek . Defendant is correct that, after Penry , the legislature added a statutory fourth question and this court articulated a fourth question in Wagner II . However, the majority of this court in Wagner II had already rejected defendant's current arguments, which the
We also reject the notion that, at the time of the decision in Wagner II , this court lacked the authority to expand the three-factor capital sentencing scheme that was part of Oregon's statutes at the time. The majority opinion in Wagner II militates for a contrary conclusion, as does our decision in State v. Upton ,
The defendant in Upton had been charged in 2004 with multiple counts of racketeering and aggravated theft. In keeping with the United States Supreme Court's then-recent decision in Blakely v. Washington ,
In a mandamus case that followed, this court disagreed, noting that nothing in Oregon's statutes either (1) limited a jury's ability to make the necessary findings to impose an enhanced sentence or (2) prohibited implementation of the Sixth Amendment's requirement that sentencing enhancement factors be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id . at 679-81,
C. The Fourth Question: Burden and Standard of Proof
Finally, we turn to defendant's assignments of error-numbers 52 and 54-concerning the burden and standard of proof as to the fourth question. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury that the fourth question must be proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) failing to require the state to prove the fourth question beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant argues that, by making the death penalty in his case a constitutional possibility when it had not existed before, this court functionally transmogrified the fourth question into a sentencing enhancement element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant contends that the trial court's failure to so instruct the jury violated the United States Supreme Court's decision in
This court expressly rejected defendant's Apprendi -violation argument in State v. Longo ,
" Apprendi / Blakely applies only to 'facts.' See Blakely ,, 542 U.S. at 301('any fact that increases the penalty' (emphasis added; quoting 124 S.Ct. 2531 Apprendi , , 530 U.S. at 490) ); see also Ring [v. Arizona ], 536 U.S. [584,] 609, 120 S.Ct. 2348 [, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (2002) ] (Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury applies to 'the factfinding necessary to put [a defendant] to death'). But the fourth question does not involve any determination of fact. Instead, in answering the fourth question, the jury weighs aggravating factors against mitigating factors. '[T]he fourth question does not carry a burden of proof, "because it does not present an issue subject to proof in the traditional sense[;] rather[,] it frames a discretionary determination for the jury." ' Moore , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 324 Or. at 432 ,(emphasis and second alteration in original; quoting State v. Wagner , 927 P.2d 1073 , 18, 309 Or. 5 , cert. den. , 786 P.2d 93 , 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 212 (1990) ). Because the fourth question does not involve a determination of fact, Apprendi / Blakely does not require the state to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." 112 L.Ed.2d 171
Id. at 605-06,
VI. CONCLUSION
Although we do not discuss them, we have examined each of defendant's other penalty-phase assignments of error and the arguments defendant has made in support of them. As to those other assignments of error, we conclude that they are without merit. Consequently, we affirm the sentence of death.
The sentence of death is affirmed.
Notes
Rockenbrant had disappeared in April 1988 after reportedly going out to meet defendant, and his bludgeoned remains were found shortly thereafter buried behind defendant's Oregon State Hospital cottage. The shallow grave into which Rockenbrant's body had been placed was marked by a note identifying it as "Cottage 18 garden plot. Please leave alone." Defendant was returning to his cottage as hospital staff were investigating the so-called "garden plot" and fled in the automobile that had belonged to Rockenbrant after staff ordered him to stop and speak with them. Upon learning of Rockenbrant's murder, the daughter of defendant's aunt contacted police authorities concerning a suspiciously large hole that defendant had dug in her mother's backyard that previous winter.
The aggravated murder convictions for Rockenbrant's death that followed were later reversed and remanded on direct review. See State v. Langley ,
At the time of defendant's motion, the Code of Judicial Conduct had been revised, and the analogous rule that applied was Rule 3.10(A)(5), which we later discuss.
To be precise, the temporal requirement of ORS 14.270 can vary somewhat according to a judicial district's population. ORS 14.260(4), for example, provides that, for judicial districts with a population of 200,000 or greater, the affidavit and motion for change of judge "shall be made at the time and in the manner prescribed in ORS 14.270." At the same time, ORS 14.260(5) provides that in judicial districts with a smaller population-between 100,000 and 200,000-the affidavit and motion must be made "at the time and in the manner prescribed in ORS 14.270 unless the circuit court makes local rules under ORS 3.220 [adopting the alternative procedure described in ORS 14.260(2) ]." Because the Marion County Judicial District (District 3) has a population over 200,000, ORS 14.260(5) is inapplicable here.
In his reply brief to this court, defendant also argues for the first time on appeal that he never personally received a copy of the notice assigning Judge James to his case. Defendant asserts that he has consistently contended as much throughout this matter and points to various places in the record to support that position. Having searched defendant's references to the record, however, we have been unable to find any argument to that end. Consequently, we decline to consider that argument, on the ground that it was not preserved below.
The same is true for defendant's reliance on Canon 2, Rule 2.11(A)(6) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2011). Although defendant's opening brief fails to set out the rule in its entirety, the rule is, with only minor exceptions, virtually identical to the text of Rule 3.10(A)(5) (2013) and subject, therefore, to the same analysis. Having examined and rejected defendant's arguments regarding judicial disqualification under the Oregon rule, it is unnecessary to repeat that process in order to also reject the notion that the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct similarly required Judge James's disqualification in this matter.
Specifically, defendant wrote:
"I see my criminality as part of my power and control, regulation patterns. I use calculating, compulsive thinking towards criminal, hurtful behavior. I favor my self-gratification.
"My failure to resist these impulses is evidenced by my extensive criminal history. I use my criminality as a rebellious expression of autonomy and to [sic ] damage and destruction that I cause is symbolic in nature. It is my way of saying fuck the world. I am someone. And I will do whatever I want to whenever I want to do it."
Although we focus on admissibility of evidence of violence in prison, we do not mean to imply that other evidence pertaining to a defendant's future dangerousness, although not specific to the defendant, is inadmissible. For example, in this case, defendant was able to establish through cross-examination of Forbes, and without objection, that inmates at OSP sentenced to lengthy sentences, such as life imprisonment, comprise a generally well-behaved inmate population.
ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) (1989) provided:
"If constitutionally required, considering the extent to which the defendant's character and background, and the circumstances of the offense may reduce the defendant's moral culpability or blameworthiness for the crime, whether a sentence of death be imposed."
The 1991 Legislative Assembly amended the statute to its current form in response to this court's decision in State v. Wagner ,
This court's holding in Guzek III regarding the fourth question is discussed in greater detail below.
ORS 135.703 to 135.709 authorize dismissal of criminal prosecutions pursuant to a civil compromise. Specifically, ORS 135.705(1)(a) provides:
"If the person injured acknowledges in writing, at any time before trial on an accusatory instrument for the crime, that the person has received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, in its discretion, *** enter a judgment dismissing the accusatory instrument."
Discharge by compromise is a bar to another prosecution for the same crime. ORS 135.707.
As we explain in footnote 12, the court in Guzek III also held that, regardless of the defendant's ex post facto arguments, victim impact evidence was admissible under the fourth question.
Oregon voters adopted the crime victim's rights provisions set out at Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in 1999, long after the commission of the crime at issue in this case. Among other things, the amendment provided that crime victims have "[t]he right * * * to be heard at * * * the sentencing * * * disposition." Or. Const., Art. I, § 42 (1)(a). In Guzek III ,
See, e.g ., Eddings v. Oklahoma,