Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed a criminal conviction where the defendant challenged the trial court's denial of a motion to sever charges involving two different minor victims. The court held that the defendant successfully demonstrated case-specific substantial prejudice under ORS 132.560(3), requiring the trial court to grant relief, but found the error harmless regarding charges involving one victim. Consequently, the court affirmed the convictions related to one victim while reversing and remanding for a new trial on the single count involving the other victim, declining to address the constitutionality of the mandatory sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant established a case‑specific theory of substantial prejudice sufficient to require severance of the charges under ORS 132.560(3).
- Whether the trial court's error in denying the motion to sever was harmless as to the convictions involving victim A.
Holdings
- The defendant did establish a sufficient case‑specific theory of substantial prejudice; the trial court erred in denying the motion to sever.
- The error was harmless as to A; the judgment on the counts involving A is affirmed, the conviction on the single count involving M is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on that count.
Key quotations
“We conclude that defendant established a sufficient theory of case‑specific substantial prejudice, supported by the record, resulting from the state’s decision to join the charges in this case.”
“We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment respecting the single count of conviction alleging conduct against M and remand only that aspect of the judgment for a new trial.”
Factual background
Defendant was charged with twelve counts of child sexual abuse involving two minor victims, A and M. A was repeatedly touched over a four‑year period; M was allegedly kissed on the lips and hugged. The defendant moved to sever the two sets of charges, alleging substantial prejudice from joinder.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to sever. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial but reversed the Measure 11 sentence for the count involving victim M. Both the State and the defendant cross‑petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court reviewed the severance issue de novo and the sentencing issue was not reached.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Washington County Circuit Court for a new trial on the single count involving victim M; the judgment on counts involving victim A is affirmed.