Decker v. Sundquist

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the petitioner had not proved that his convictions were based on nonunanimous jury verdicts. The record established that at least nine of the fifteen guilty verdicts were nonunanimous, constituting a substantial denial of constitutional rights. The court reversed and remanded for the post-conviction court to fashion a proper and just remedy.

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 the fifteen guilty verdicts were nonunanimous.
2. When it is established that a conviction was entered based on a nonunanimous verdict, the constitutional violation is substantial and the conviction is void for purposes of the Oregon Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
3. The case must be remanded for the post-conviction court to fashion an appropriate remedy that is proper and just and cures the harm caused by the nonunanimous convictions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that petitioner failed to prove that his convictions were based on nonunanimous jury verdicts.
2. Whether evidence from the jury poll established by a preponderance of the evidence that at least nine convictions resulted from nonunanimous verdicts.
3. What remedy should be fashioned on remand for convictions shown to have resulted from nonunanimous verdicts.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded