Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Antonio VASQUEZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of one count each of second-degree assault constituting domestic violence (Count 1) and strangulation constituting domestic violence (Count 2), as well as two counts of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence (Counts 3 and 5). The jury was instructed that its verdicts need not be unanimous, which was error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). The jury was unanimous as to all of the counts except Count 5, on which it returned a nonunanimous verdict.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred in giving the nonunanimous jury instruction, that the error was structural error, and that all of his convictions therefore should be reversed. The state concedes that defendant is entitled to reversal on the nonunanimous count. We agree and accept the concession, and exercise discretion to correct the error for the reasons set forth in State v. Ulery, 366 Or. 500, 464 P.3d 1123 (2020).1 As for defendant's structural error argument concerning the remaining convictions, he makes the same arguments that were rejected in State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or. 335, 478 P.3d 507 (2020), and its companion cases. Defendant also raises an evidentiary argument on appeal, which we reject without written discussion.
Conviction on Count 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The offense of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable up to 364 days imprisonment (ORS 161.615), and, because the possible penalty exceeded six months’ imprisonment, defendant was entitled to a unanimous jury verdict under the Sixth Amendment. See State v. Wollam, 306 Or. App. 284, 285, 473 P.3d 1163 (2020) (so stating).
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A171308
Decided: February 18, 2021
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)