State v. Mendoza-Lopez

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
546 July 15, 2020 No. 357 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PABLO E. MENDOZA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 15CR06590; A170449 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PABLO ENRIQUE MENDOZA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 13C46615; A170450 Courtland Geyer, Judge. Submitted June 5, 2020. Jedediah Peterson and O’Connor Weber, LLC, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM In Case Nos. 15CR06590 and 13C46615, reversed and remanded. Cite as 305 Or App 546 (2020) 547 PER CURIAM In these two cases, consolidated for opinion, defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse concerning one child, and another two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse concerning a second child. ORS 163.411; ORS 163.427. He raises several assignments of error concerning jury instructions, and also argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that its verdicts need not be unanimous and in accepting nonunaniomus verdicts on all of the counts. 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. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts in this case constitutes reversible error as to all of defendant’s convictions. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments. In Case Nos. 15CR06590 and 13C46615, 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.