State v. Vaughn

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Vaughn

464 P.3d 1153, 304 Or. App. 854

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 17, 2020

DocketA169056

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 464 P.3d 1153 (State v. Vaughn) 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. Vaughn, 464 P.3d 1153, 304 Or. App. 854 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted May 26, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEORGE LEE VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 18CR17001; A169056 464 P3d 1153

Andrew Erwin, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, 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 DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 304 Or App 854 (2020) 855

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215, and first- degree theft, ORS 164.055. Defendant argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s accep- tance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our dis- cretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obvi- ates the need to address defendant’s remaining argument. Reversed and remanded.

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

Submitted May 26, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEORGE LEE VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 18CR17001; A169056 464 P3d 1153

Andrew Erwin, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, 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 DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 304 Or App 854 (2020) 855

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215, and first- degree theft, ORS 164.055. Defendant argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s accep- tance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our dis- cretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obvi- ates the need to address defendant’s remaining argument. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 P.3d 1153, 304 Or. App. 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vaughn-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack