State v. Hatchell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hatchell

481 P.3d 413, 309 Or. App. 348

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 10, 2021

DocketA167972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 481 P.3d 413 (State v. Hatchell) 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. Hatchell, 481 P.3d 413, 309 Or. App. 348 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted June 25, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUSTIN DOUGLAS HATCHELL, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR27612, 17CR56799, 17CR56804; A167972 (Control), A167973, A167974 481 P3d 413

Kenneth R. Walker, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 348 (2021) 349

PER CURIAM In this consolidated criminal case, defendant was convicted of various crimes in Case Nos. 17CR56804, 17CR27612, and 17CR56799, which were joined for trial. The jury was instructed that its verdicts need not be unan- imous, which was error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The jury found defendant guilty of all counts, and the verdicts were unani- mous as to all counts. On appeal, defendant raises seven assignments of error. We reject assignments of error one through five without written discussion. In assignments of error six and seven, defendant argues that the trial court erred in giving the nonunanimous jury instruction, that the error was struc- tural error, and that all of his convictions therefore should be reversed. Defendant also contends that, even if the error was not structural, it was plain error that we should exer- cise our discretion to correct. We reject those arguments for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was not structural error and was harmless with respect to unani- mous verdicts. Affirmed.

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

Submitted June 25, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUSTIN DOUGLAS HATCHELL, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR27612, 17CR56799, 17CR56804; A167972 (Control), A167973, A167974 481 P3d 413

Kenneth R. Walker, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 348 (2021) 349

PER CURIAM In this consolidated criminal case, defendant was convicted of various crimes in Case Nos. 17CR56804, 17CR27612, and 17CR56799, which were joined for trial. The jury was instructed that its verdicts need not be unan- imous, which was error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The jury found defendant guilty of all counts, and the verdicts were unani- mous as to all counts. On appeal, defendant raises seven assignments of error. We reject assignments of error one through five without written discussion. In assignments of error six and seven, defendant argues that the trial court erred in giving the nonunanimous jury instruction, that the error was struc- tural error, and that all of his convictions therefore should be reversed. Defendant also contends that, even if the error was not structural, it was plain error that we should exer- cise our discretion to correct. We reject those arguments for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was not structural error and was harmless with respect to unani- mous verdicts. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 P.3d 413, 309 Or. App. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hatchell-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack