State v. Ballard
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
852 June 17, 2020 No. 300 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSHUA MAURICE BALLARD, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 17CR65181; A168772 J. Channing Bennett, Judge. Submitted March 31, 2020. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 304 Or App 852 (2020) 853 PER CURIAM Defendant was found guilty by nonunanimous jury verdicts of first-degree robbery, ORS 164.415, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. 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, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme 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. Further, the courtexercised its 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 that error. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining argument. 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.
