Decker v. Sundquist

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals reverses the denial of post-conviction relief where a jury poll and subsequent juror statement established that at least nine guilty verdicts were nonunanimous. The court holds that the petitioner demonstrated a substantial constitutional denial under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act and remands for the post-conviction court to fashion a proper and just remedy. A dissent would also grant relief but criticizes the majority’s approach to conviction-specific relief and the remedy on remand.

Holdings

1. The post-conviction court erred in finding that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving nonunanimous verdicts. The record compelled the conclusion that at least nine of petitioner's fifteen guilty verdicts were nonunanimous.
2. When it is established that a conviction was entered on a nonunanimous verdict, the conviction reflects a substantial denial of constitutional rights that renders the conviction void and requires post-conviction relief.
3. The case must be reversed and remanded for the post-conviction court to fashion an appropriate remedy that is proper and just and cures the harm caused by at least nine convictions being based on nonunanimous verdicts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his convictions were based on nonunanimous jury verdicts.
2. Whether the record's jury-poll evidence established that at least some of petitioner's convictions were entered on nonunanimous verdicts and therefore constituted a substantial denial of constitutional rights warranting post-conviction relief.
3. What disposition and remedy were appropriate after determining that the post-conviction court erred.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded