State v. Vaughn

Full title: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEORGE LEE VAUGHN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 17, 2020

304 Or. App. 854 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)

464 P.3d 1153

Opinion

A169056

06-17-2020

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George Lee VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.

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.

PER CURIAM.

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 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 , ––– U.S. ––––, 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 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 a nonunanimous verdict 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 argument.

Reversed and remanded.