State v. Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
858 June 17, 2020 No. 303 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICHOLAS CLIFTON JONES, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 15CR38327; A164035 David F. Rees, Judge. Argued and submitted December 6, 2018. Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. ______________ * Lagesen, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore. Cite as 304 Or App 858 (2020) 859 PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted on two counts of promoting prostitution and two counts of attempted promoting prostitution by nonunanimous jury verdicts. ORS 167.012. Defendant argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, ___ L Ed 2d ___ (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, ___ P3d ___ (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments. Reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
