Opinion
A167711 (Control), A167712
12-15-2021
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alberto Zendajas BAEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM In a consolidated criminal jury trial, defendant was convicted of 13 criminal counts arising out of several domestic violence incidents. The trial court, over defendant's objection, gave a nonunanimous-verdict instruction, and the jury returned six nonunanimous and seven unanimous guilty verdicts. On appeal, defendant raises five assignments of error, all but two we reject without written discussion. As explained below, we reverse and remand the six convictions based upon nonunanimous guilty verdicts and affirm the remaining convictions.
In Case No. 16CR37168, the jury's guilty verdicts were nonunanimous for Count 2 (fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence), Count 4 (coercion constituting domestic violence), and Count 6 (strangulation constituting domestic violence). In Case No. 17CR32899, the jury returned nonunanimous guilty verdicts for Count 1 (second-degree assault constituting domestic violence), Count 2 (attempted second-degree assault constituting domestic violence), and Count 4 (second-degree assault constituting domestic violence). Defendant challenges those verdicts based on Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. 1390, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), the state concedes that the Supreme Court's holding requires reversal of those convictions, and we accept that concession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand those counts.
Defendant further argues that his remaining convictions must also be reversed in light of Ramos because the instruction permitting a nonunanimous jury verdict constitutes structural error. The Oregon Supreme Court has rejected defendant's structural error argument in State v. Flores Ramos , 367 Or. 292, 319, 478 P.3d 515 (2020). Further, when the jury returns unanimous guilty verdicts, despite the erroneous instruction allowing nonunanimous guilty verdicts, such error is "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Ciraulo , 367 Or. 350, 354, 478 P.3d 502 (2020).
It is worth noting out of a sense of completeness that the Oregon Supreme Court has explained that a trial court must instruct the jury that specified nonunanimous not-guilty verdicts are permitted. See State v. Ross , 367 Or. 560, 561, 481 P.3d 1286 (2021) (concluding that a trial court is required "to instruct the jury that Oregon law requires a unanimous guilty verdict for all charges and permits a not-guilty verdict by a vote of 11 to one or 10 to two").
In Case No. 16CR37168, convictions on Counts 2, 4, and 6, reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed. In Case No. 17CR32899, convictions on Counts 1, 2, and 4 reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.