Summary
reversing and remanding defendant's conviction of first-degree sexual abuse on the state's concession under Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 US ––––, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583
Summary of this case from State v. CaseOpinion
A171928
04-07-2021
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edward Lemont CASE, Jr., aka Edmond LeMont Case, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Rond Chananudech, 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. Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Rond Chananudech, 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.
Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM A nonunanimous jury found defendant guilty of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, erred by admitting hearsay statements under OEC 803(18a)(b), and plainly erred by allowing the victim's mother to comment on the credibility of the victim. We reject the argument on the motion for judgment of acquittal without discussion, and because we ultimately reverse and remand for the reasons explained below, do not reach the other two arguments.
Defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts and contends that, because the jury returned a nonunanimous verdict, his conviction must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). The state, for its part, concedes that both the instruction and judgment based on the nonunanimous verdict were in error. We agree, accept the state's concession, and for the reasons explained in State v. Ulery , 366 Or. 500, 464 P.3d 1123 (2020), exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Reversed and remanded.