State v. Ross

Oregon law permits a not-guilty verdict by a vote of 11-to-1 or 10-to-2.

During a trial for murder, Relator (Ross) and the state asked the trial court to instruct the jury that it could acquit defendant by a vote of 10-to-2. However, the trial court concluded that, as a result of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), any verdict to convict or acquit on serious criminal charges must be unanimous. As a result, the court informed the parties that it would instruct the jury accordingly. Subsequently to this decision a writ of mandamus was filed asking to address this question.

On appeal, Relator contented that, although the US Supreme Court’s holding in Ramos would render a nonunanimous guilty verdict in his trial unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, that holding did not affect the viability of Oregon law—specifically, Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 136.450—that allows a nonunanimous not-guilty verdict. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with Relator and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus where it ordered the trial court to instruct the jury that Oregon law requires a unanimous guilty verdict for all charges and permits a not-guilty verdict by a vote of 11-to-1 or 10-to-2. Peremptory writ of mandamus to issue.