- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 02-09-2022
- Case #: A173201
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, C.J. for the Court; James, P.J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree theft--by "selling" a bicycle "knowing that the property was the subject of theft"--because the jury was not unanimous in the verdict and the evidence of his deal with a pawnshop was insufficient to find he committed theft. Under the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, a defendant's conviction by jury must be unanimous. Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). Under ORS 164.055(1)(c), selling is also an act of disposing of property and satisfies the elements of the statutes for first-degree theft if they commit "theft by receiving committed by buying, selling, borrowing or lending on the security of the property", and "[a] person commits theft by receiving if the person . . . disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft." ORS 164.095(1). The Court held that Defendant committed theft of the bicycle, thus, the Court concluded that while Defendant was "not entitled to an outright reversal of his conviction" on the basis of the theft statute or the nonunanimous verdict, he was entitled to remand on the basis of the jury's verdict. Reversed and remanded.