State v. Dick

                                 248

          Submitted June 8, reversed and remanded July 1, 2020


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                  SHAUN ALLEN DICK,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                Umatilla County Circuit Court
                    CF150130; A163648
                              

   Christopher R. Brauer, Judge.
   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 Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney
General, appeared for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Reversed and remanded.
Cite as 

 (2020)                                  249

         PER CURIAM
         Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury
verdicts on one count of sodomy in the first degree, ORS
163.405; two counts of unlawful sexual penetration in the
first degree, ORS 163.411; one count of attempted rape in
the first degree, ORS 163.375, ORS 161.405; two counts of
sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427; one count
of coercion, ORS 163.275; and one count of menacing, ORS
163.190. At trial, defendant requested the court to instruct
the jury that it needed to reach unanimous verdicts, which
the court declined to do. The jury returned nonunanimous
verdicts on all counts. On appeal, defendant assigned error
to the court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts, and we
summarily affirmed based on then-existing precedent. After
we issued the appellate judgment and the Oregon Supreme
Court denied review, defendant petitioned for certiorari in
the United States Supreme Court. The Court allowed certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded the case
for further consideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 

, 

, 

 (2020), stating:
       “The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
   pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
   The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
   Court of Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light
   of Ramos v. Louisiana, 

 (2020). Justice Alito,
   concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand:
   In this and in all other cases in which the Court grants,
   vacates, and remands in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is
   not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question
   was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand.”
Dick v. Oregon, ___ US ___, ___ S Ct ___, ___ L Ed 2d ___,

 (2020).
         In Ramos, the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts such as those at issue in the present
case violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Defendant argues that the trial court’s instructions to the jury and acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts
was error under Ramos. On remand, the state concedes that
the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts in
250                                           State v. Dick

this case constitutes reversible error. We agree and accept
that concession.
        Reversed and remanded.