State v. Ballard

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Ballard

466 P.3d 1066, 304 Or. App. 852

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 17, 2020

DocketA168772

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 466 P.3d 1066 (State v. Ballard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ballard, 466 P.3d 1066, 304 Or. App. 852 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted March 31, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSHUA MAURICE BALLARD, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 17CR65181; A168772 466 P3d 1066

J. Channing Bennett, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 304 Or App 852 (2020) 853

PER CURIAM Defendant was found guilty by nonunanimous jury verdicts of first-degree robbery, ORS 164.415, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. Defendant argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts consti- tutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error. Further, the court exercised its discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our dis- cretion to correct that error. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining argument. Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Submitted March 31, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSHUA MAURICE BALLARD, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 17CR65181; A168772 466 P3d 1066

J. Channing Bennett, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 304 Or App 852 (2020) 853

PER CURIAM Defendant was found guilty by nonunanimous jury verdicts of first-degree robbery, ORS 164.415, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. Defendant argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts consti- tutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error. Further, the court exercised its discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our dis- cretion to correct that error. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining argument. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 P.3d 1066, 304 Or. App. 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ballard-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack