State v. King

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. King

487 P.3d 413, 311 Or. App. 746

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 26, 2021

DocketA168809

StatusPublished

This text of 487 P.3d 413 (State v. King) 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. King, 487 P.3d 413, 311 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted April 24, 2020, reversed and remanded May 26, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SUSAN KING, aka Susan M. King, Defendant-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 17CR40593; A168809 487 P3d 413

Timothy Barnack, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 311 Or App 746 (2021) 747

PER CURIAM Defendant, who was found guilty by a nonunan- imous jury verdict of first-degree manslaughter, contends that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict and in accepting a nonunanimous verdict. We agree. After the United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court held that trial court acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict is plain error. State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020). We exercise discretion to correct the error, for the reasons set forth in Ulery. We therefore do not reach defendant’s second assignment of error. We reject defen- dant’s first assignment of error without written discussion. Reversed and remanded.

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

Submitted April 24, 2020, reversed and remanded May 26, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SUSAN KING, aka Susan M. King, Defendant-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 17CR40593; A168809 487 P3d 413

Timothy Barnack, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 311 Or App 746 (2021) 747

PER CURIAM Defendant, who was found guilty by a nonunan- imous jury verdict of first-degree manslaughter, contends that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict and in accepting a nonunanimous verdict. We agree. After the United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court held that trial court acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict is plain error. State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020). We exercise discretion to correct the error, for the reasons set forth in Ulery. We therefore do not reach defendant’s second assignment of error. We reject defen- dant’s first assignment of error without written discussion. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 P.3d 413, 311 Or. App. 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack