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. Salvador Abrica LOPEZ, aka Salvador Abrica, aka Salvador Abrica-Lopez, aka Salvador Lopez, aka Lopez Abrica Salvador, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdict of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427 (Count 1). He was also convicted by unanimous jury verdicts of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427 (Counts 2, 3, 8, and 9) and two counts of first-degree sodomy, ORS 163.405 (Counts 4 and 7).1 Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction. In his brief submitted through counsel, he raises three assignments of error, and in a pro se supplemental brief, he raises five supplemental assignments of error. We write to address his first and second assignments of error, and we reject the remaining assignments without discussion.
In his first assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by accepting a nonunanimous jury verdict on Count 1. In response, the state concedes that the trial court erred by accepting the nonunanimous verdict, because that verdict violated the federal constitution's unanimous jury requirement as set forth in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). We agree with the state and accept its concession as to Count 1. Defendant argues in his second assignment that his remaining convictions should be reversed based on the erroneous nonunanimous verdict instruction. We reject defendant's argument that his convictions based on a unanimous verdict also must be reversed. See State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 478 P.3d 515 (2020) (erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was not structural error and was harmless with respect to unanimous verdicts).
Conviction on Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. For unknown reasons, the indictment did not contain a Count 5 or a Count 6.
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: A171767
Decided: December 29, 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)