Opinion
A164035
06-17-2020
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nicholas Clifton JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.
Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.
Lagesen, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore.
PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted on two counts of promoting prostitution and two counts of attempted promoting prostitution by nonunanimous jury verdicts. ORS 167.012. 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 , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery , 366 Or. 500, 504, 464 P.3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court's acceptance 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 nonunanimous verdicts in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery , we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant's remaining arguments.
Reversed and remanded.