State v. Gibbens

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gibbens

489 P.3d 150, 312 Or. App. 545

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 23, 2021

DocketA171916

StatusPublished

This text of 489 P.3d 150 (State v. Gibbens) 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. Gibbens, 489 P.3d 150, 312 Or. App. 545 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted June 2; count 2 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed June 23; petition for review denied September 30, 2021 (368 Or 597)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM HARRISON GIBBENS, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 18CR47115; A171916 489 P3d 150

Courtland Geyer, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Count 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. 546 State v. Gibbens

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by unanimous jury ver- dict of first-degree sexual abuse (Count 1), ORS 163.427, and by nonunanimous jury verdict of first-degree sodomy (Count 2), ORS 163.405. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, over his objection, that it could return nonunanimous verdicts. He also argues that this constitutes structural error and that he is entitled to reversal of the conviction based on the unanimous verdict as well as the nonunanimous verdict. The state concedes the error with respect to the nonunanimous verdict on Count 2, in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We agree and accept that conces- sion. Defendant argues that his remaining conviction also should be reversed based on the erroneous nonunanimous verdict instruction. We reject defendant’s argument that his conviction based on a unanimous verdict also must be reversed. See State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020) (erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was not structural error and was harmless with respect to unani- mous verdicts). Count 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Submitted June 2; count 2 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed June 23; petition for review denied September 30, 2021 (368 Or 597)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM HARRISON GIBBENS, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 18CR47115; A171916 489 P3d 150

Courtland Geyer, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Count 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. 546 State v. Gibbens

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by unanimous jury ver- dict of first-degree sexual abuse (Count 1), ORS 163.427, and by nonunanimous jury verdict of first-degree sodomy (Count 2), ORS 163.405. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, over his objection, that it could return nonunanimous verdicts. He also argues that this constitutes structural error and that he is entitled to reversal of the conviction based on the unanimous verdict as well as the nonunanimous verdict. The state concedes the error with respect to the nonunanimous verdict on Count 2, in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We agree and accept that conces- sion. Defendant argues that his remaining conviction also should be reversed based on the erroneous nonunanimous verdict instruction. We reject defendant’s argument that his conviction based on a unanimous verdict also must be reversed. See State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020) (erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was not structural error and was harmless with respect to unani- mous verdicts). Count 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 P.3d 150, 312 Or. App. 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gibbens-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack