State v. Kaisershot

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Kaisershot

481 P.3d 408, 309 Or. App. 322

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 10, 2021

DocketA168606

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 481 P.3d 408 (State v. Kaisershot) 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. Kaisershot, 481 P.3d 408, 309 Or. App. 322 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted April 24, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICKOLAS JOHN KAISERSHOT, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18CR09727, 18CR44960; A168606 (Control), A168607 481 P3d 408

William A. Marshall, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher Page, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 322 (2021) 323

PER CURIAM In one of these consolidated cases, defendant was convicted by jury of assaulting a public safety officer, second-degree escape, resisting arrest, and driving while suspended. The jury was instructed that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, but was not polled. In the other con- solidated case, defendant pleaded no contest to first-degree failure to appear. He makes no argument on appeal con- cerning the failure to appear case. As for the case tried to a jury, he raises several issues with respect to the trial and the judgment, including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion all of defendant’s arguments concerning the trial and the judg- ment except his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous ver- dicts. Defendant contends that because of the erroneous jury instruction, all verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020), and State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 478 P3d 509 (2020). Affirmed.

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

Submitted April 24, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICKOLAS JOHN KAISERSHOT, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18CR09727, 18CR44960; A168606 (Control), A168607 481 P3d 408

William A. Marshall, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher Page, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 322 (2021) 323

PER CURIAM In one of these consolidated cases, defendant was convicted by jury of assaulting a public safety officer, second-degree escape, resisting arrest, and driving while suspended. The jury was instructed that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, but was not polled. In the other con- solidated case, defendant pleaded no contest to first-degree failure to appear. He makes no argument on appeal con- cerning the failure to appear case. As for the case tried to a jury, he raises several issues with respect to the trial and the judgment, including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion all of defendant’s arguments concerning the trial and the judg- ment except his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous ver- dicts. Defendant contends that because of the erroneous jury instruction, all verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020), and State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 478 P3d 509 (2020). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 P.3d 408, 309 Or. App. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kaisershot-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack