From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Sangrolla

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Feb 10, 2021
309 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

A168223

02-10-2021

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shree Krishna SANGROLLA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted by jury on one count of first-degree rape and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The jury was unanimous on the sexual abuse counts, but was not unanimous on Count 5, first-degree rape. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, in instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts, and in imposing restitution. We reject defendant's evidentiary arguments without discussion. The state concedes that defendant's conviction for first-degree rape based on a nonunanimous verdict must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). We agree and accept that concession. Defendant argues that his remaining convictions also should be reversed based on the erroneous nonunanimous verdict instruction. We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos , 367 Or. 292, 478 P.3d 515 (2020), in which the court concluded that the erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was harmless with respect to unanimous verdicts. The state also concedes that the trial court erred in imposing restitution. However, our reversal of Count 5 obviates the need to address that issue.

Count 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Sangrolla

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Feb 10, 2021
309 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

State v. Sangrolla

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHREE KRISHNA SANGROLLA…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Feb 10, 2021

Citations

309 Or. App. 316 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
309 Or. App. 316

Citing Cases

State v. Sangrolla

On appeal, we reversed and remanded the conviction on Count 5, because the verdict on that count was…