From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Weltch

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
May 1, 2019
297 Or. App. 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

Summary

explaining that our case law forecloses the same unpreserved claim of error concerning jury unanimity

Summary of this case from State v. Smith

Opinion

A166193

05-01-2019

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joshua Daniel WELTCH, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

PER CURIAMAppealing a judgment of conviction for felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s (1) failure to supply a concurrence instruction to the jury, (2) failure to instruct the jury that it was required to reach a unanimous jury verdict, and (3) acceptance of a nonunanimous jury verdict. Defendant’s first assignment of error is not preserved and the error, if any, is not plain. Defendant’s remaining assignments of error are foreclosed by our case law. State v. Bowen , 215 Or. App. 199, 202, 168 P.3d 1208 (2007), adh’d to as modified on recons. , 220 Or. App. 380, 185 P.3d 1129, rev. den. , 345 Or. 415, 197 P.3d 1104 (2008), cert. den. , 558 U.S. 815, 130 S.Ct. 52, 175 L.Ed.2d 21 (2009).

We note that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Ramos v. Louisiana , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1318, ––– L.Ed. 2d –––– (2019), to consider (again) the question of whether the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requirement of jury unanimity applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
--------

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Weltch

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
May 1, 2019
297 Or. App. 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

explaining that our case law forecloses the same unpreserved claim of error concerning jury unanimity

Summary of this case from State v. Smith

explaining that our case law forecloses the same unpreserved claim of error concerning jury unanimity that defendant raises in his supplemental assignment of error

Summary of this case from State v. Wenzell
Case details for

State v. Weltch

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSHUA DANIEL WELTCH…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: May 1, 2019

Citations

297 Or. App. 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)
439 P.3d 1047

Citing Cases

State v. Wenzell

PER CURIAM Affirmed. State v. Webster , 280 Or. App. 217, 380 P.3d 1165 (2016), rev. den. , 361 Or. 350, 393…

State v. Travers

We reject defendant’s first two assignments of error without discussion, and we reject his supplemental…