State v. Williams

The Court of Appeals may only review the denial of a motion for a new trial if “the motion is based upon juror misconduct or newly discovered evidence.” State v. Sullens, 314 Or 436, 440, 839 P2d 708 (1992) (emphasis in original); see generally State v. Alvarez-Vega, 240 Or App 616, 619, 251 P3d 199, rev den, 350 Or 297 (2011) (concluding that the defendant's constitutional challenge was beyond the scope of our review because he failed to show how his claim fell within ORCP 64 B(4)).

Defendant appealed the trial court's judgment of conviction for first-degree sodomy. He assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the application of Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution— which allows a nonunanimous jury to render a verdict —was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additionally, Defendant argued that affidavits from two jurors showed the jury’s vote to convict him was racially motivated. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s appeal was not reviewable because it was not based on ORCP 64 B(4), which allows a trial court to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Court of Appeals may only review the denial of a motion for a new trial if “the motion is based upon juror misconduct or newly discovered evidence.” State v. Sullens, 314 Or 436, 440, 839 P2d 708 (1992) (emphasis in original); see generally State v. Alvarez-Vega, 240 Or App 616, 619, 251 P3d 199, rev den, 350 Or 297 (2011) (concluding that the defendant's constitutional challenge was beyond the scope of our review because he failed to show how his claim fell within ORCP 64 B(4)). The Court concluded that Defendant’s constitutional challenge was not reviewable because Defendant conceded that his challenges were not based on ORCP 64 B(4) and Defendant never preserved his argument during trial that new evidence established juror misconduct.

Affirmed.