State v. Hawk

                                 862

    Argued and submitted May 6, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
               DOMINIC ANDREW HAWK,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   17CR17672; A168406
                             

   Gregory F. Silver, Judge.
   Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, argued the
cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet,
Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
   Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Reversed and remanded.
Cite as 

 (2020)                               863

         PER CURIAM
         Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury
verdict of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS
813.010. Defendant argues that the trial court’s acceptance
of a nonunanimous verdict constitutes plain error under
the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Ramos v. Louisiana, 

, 

, 

 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous
jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v.
Ulery, 

, 

 (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. Defendant explained at oral argument that reversal
of his conviction based on this error would obviate the need
to address his other arguments. For the reasons set forth in
Ulery, we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this
case.
         Reversed and remanded.