State v. Rossiter

Defendant appealed his judgment of conviction for first-degree manslaughter. Defendant had seven assignments of error: (1) denying his request for the testimony of witnesses before the Linn County Grand Jury who voted on the indictment; (2) admission of evidence of his religious beliefs; (3) denying his motion for access to the autopsy report; (4) denying his motion for acquittal; (5) rejecting his proportionality challenge to the statutory 120-month sentence; (6) “allowing the state to introduce inadmissible expert opinion evidence regarding defendant’s culpable mental state”; and (7) the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the grand jury testimony would have been useful to impeach the trial witnesses; (2) admitting the evidence of his religious beliefs shifted the jury’s verdict on their opinion of his belief system; (3) the destroyed tape with the autopsy report contained favorable evidence for him; (4) there was insufficient evidence presented to show Defendant had the reckless mental state necessary for first-degree manslaughter (ORS 163.118(1)(c)(B)) and criminal negligence for second-degree manslaughter (ORS 163.125(1)(c)(B)); (5)  Defendant continued his proposition for his proportionality challenge; (6) Defendant continued his assertion that the State erred in introducing the expert opinion; and (7) Defendant asserted “the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution require unanimous jury verdicts.” The Court looked at the points on appeal and concluded that none of arguments made warranted error on the trial court. The conclusions made by the Court were in sum: (1) Defendant did not produce any reason why any grand jury witness testified in an accusatory manner as to Defendant’s religious beliefs; (2) Defendant has not demonstrated why the court’s admission of his religious beliefs tainted neutral rules of evidence; (3) Defendant did not provide a reasonable basis to conclude why the recorded autopsy report would provide favorable review for him; (4) the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to find the defendant had the mental state required for each charge; (5) the proportionality challenge was rejected on the same basis as in State v. Rossiter 300 Or App 60-63, __ P3d__ (2019); and (6) the “supplemental assignment of error was unpreserved and does not meet the requirements for the plain-error rule.”

Affirmed.