State v. Heine

When the State elects to provide a defendant with a jury trial, then the jury trial must comport with the Due Process Clause. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 US 387, 105 S Ct 830, 83 L Ed 2d 821 1985).

Defendant was convicted of a Class C felony of tampering with a witness and a Class B misdemeanor of harassment by a non-unanimous verdict. Defendant argued that Ramos extended unanimous jury verdicts to misdemeanors even when a jury is not mandated for the particular offense. The State argued that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments jury trial requirements do not extend to petty offenses and thus Ramos does not extend to Defendant’s misdemeanor verdict.  When the State elects to provide a defendant with a jury trial, then the jury trial must comport with the Due Process Clause. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 US 387, 105 S Ct 830, 83 L Ed 2d 821 1985). The Court held that even though a jury trial was not mandatory regarding Defendant’s misdemeanor, the fact that the court proceeded with a jury trial means that a unanimous jury verdict was necessary. The Court reasoned that unanimity is crucial for an impartial jury’s effectiveness and a non-unanimous jury only for misdemeanors does not coincide with the policy behind the Due Process Clause. Reversed and remanded.