State v. Case

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Case

484 P.3d 1130, 310 Or. App. 567

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 7, 2021

DocketA171928

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 484 P.3d 1130 (State v. Case) 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. Case, 484 P.3d 1130, 310 Or. App. 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted February 25, reversed and remanded April 7, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EDWARD LEMONT CASE, JR., aka Edmond LeMont Case, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 17CR61289; A171928 484 P3d 1130

Rafael A. Caso, Judge pro tempore. Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 568 State v. Case

PER CURIAM A nonunanimous jury found defendant guilty of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. On appeal, defen- dant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, erred by admitting hearsay state- ments under OEC 803(18a)(b), and plainly erred by allow- ing the victim’s mother to comment on the credibility of the victim. We reject the argument on the motion for judgment of acquittal without discussion, and because we ultimately reverse and remand for the reasons explained below, do not reach the other two arguments. Defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts and contends that, because the jury returned a nonunanimous verdict, his conviction must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The state, for its part, concedes that both the instruction and judgment based on the nonunani- mous verdict were in error. We agree, accept the state’s con- cession, and for the reasons explained in State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), exercise our discretion to cor- rect the error. Reversed and remanded.

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

Argued and submitted February 25, reversed and remanded April 7, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EDWARD LEMONT CASE, JR., aka Edmond LeMont Case, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 17CR61289; A171928 484 P3d 1130

Rafael A. Caso, Judge pro tempore. Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 568 State v. Case

PER CURIAM A nonunanimous jury found defendant guilty of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. On appeal, defen- dant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, erred by admitting hearsay state- ments under OEC 803(18a)(b), and plainly erred by allow- ing the victim’s mother to comment on the credibility of the victim. We reject the argument on the motion for judgment of acquittal without discussion, and because we ultimately reverse and remand for the reasons explained below, do not reach the other two arguments. Defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts and contends that, because the jury returned a nonunanimous verdict, his conviction must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The state, for its part, concedes that both the instruction and judgment based on the nonunani- mous verdict were in error. We agree, accept the state’s con- cession, and for the reasons explained in State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), exercise our discretion to cor- rect the error. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 1130, 310 Or. App. 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-case-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack