Brooks v. Gladden, 226 Or. 191

358 P.2d 1055 (1961) · Supreme Court of Oregon · January 25, 1961

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that denying a criminal defendant's request to poll the jury violated an Oregon procedural right but did not constitute a substantial denial of due process rendering the conviction void. Because the defendant had an adequate remedy by direct appeal, post-conviction relief was unavailable. The court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

Court
Supreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the Court
O'Connell, J.; McAllister, Chief Justice; Warner, Justice; Sloan, Justice; O'Connell, Justice; Howell, Justice
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Decision date
January 25, 1961
Procedural posture
Appeal from a post-conviction judgment setting aside a criminal conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial.
Standard of review
De novo review of whether the alleged denial constituted a substantial denial of constitutional rights rendering the conviction void and therefore supported post-conviction relief.
Precedential value
Published Oregon Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Brooks v. Gladden
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

state post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefjury instructionsdue processappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurestate post-conviction reliefconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether denial of a criminal defendant's request to poll the jury constitutes a substantial denial of due process under the Oregon or United States Constitution, rendering the conviction void and authorizing post-conviction relief.
  2. Whether Oregon's Post-Conviction Hearing Act permits relief or a delayed appeal for an error that could have been corrected through a direct appeal.

Holdings

  1. Although a defendant has an absolute statutory right to have the jury polled upon request and denial of that right may constitute reversible error on direct appeal, the denial does not constitute a substantial denial of due process or render the conviction void.
  2. ORS 138.520 does not expand ORS 138.530 to authorize post-conviction relief when none of the statutory grounds for relief is established; the Act does not provide a delayed appeal for the nonconstitutional procedural error asserted here.

Key quotations

But it is one thing to say that the defendant should have such a right and quite another thing to say that a denial of that right violates due process of law. (226 Or. at 203)
Viewing the denial of the trial judge to permit a poll of the jury against this background, we are of the opinion that defendant was not denied due process of law under our Constitution or under the Constitution of the United States. (226 Or. at 204)

Factual background

Brooks was convicted of uttering a forged bank check and received a twenty-year sentence. When the guilty verdict was announced, he requested that the jury be polled, but the trial judge denied the request because the ten jurors who voted for conviction had signed the verdict form. Brooks did not appeal the conviction and instead sought post-conviction relief, asserting that the refusal to poll the jury rendered the conviction void.

Procedural history

Brooks was convicted in the Lane County Circuit Court of uttering a forged bank check and sentenced to twenty years. After the trial court denied his request to poll the jury, he did not pursue a direct appeal. He later sought post-conviction relief in the Marion County Circuit Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded him for a new trial. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

Remand instructions

Reverse the Marion County Circuit Court judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the post-conviction petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Oregon Supreme Court