State v. Mendoza-Lopez

468 P.3d 535, 305 Or. App. 546

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 15, 2020
• Docket: A170449
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted June 5; in Case Nos. 15CR06590 and 13C46615, reversed and remanded July 15, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PABLO E. MENDOZA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 15CR06590; A170449 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PABLO ENRIQUE MENDOZA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 13C46615; A170450 468 P3d 535

Courtland Geyer, Judge. Jedediah Peterson and O’Connor Weber, LLC, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM In Case Nos. 15CR06590 and 13C46615, reversed and remanded. Cite as 305 Or App 546 (2020) 547

PER CURIAM In these two cases, consolidated for opinion, defen- dant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse concerning one child, and another two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetra- tion and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse concern- ing a second child. ORS 163.411; ORS 163.427. He raises several assignments of error concerning jury instructions, and also argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that its verdicts need not be unanimous and in accept- ing nonunaniomus verdicts on all of the counts. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts in this case constitutes reversible error as to all of defendant’s convictions. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments. In Case Nos. 15CR06590 and 13C46615, reversed and remanded.