State v. Fanus, 336 Or. 63

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed Jesse Stuart Fanus's convictions for two counts of aggravated murder and 11 additional felony convictions, along with his sentence of death. The court addressed constitutional challenges to Oregon's death-penalty statutes and the denial of motions for a change of venue based on alleged prejudicial pretrial publicity. The court affirmed the convictions and death sentence.

Holdings

1. A defendant may challenge by pretrial demurrer the constitutionality of the only penalty provision applicable to an aggravated-murder charge because the challenge relates to whether the facts stated constitute an offense under ORS 135.630(4).
2. ORS 163.150(1)(a) and ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) (1997) did not violate the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide more specific limits or standards for aggravating evidence relevant to whether a death sentence should be imposed.
3. The court rejected Fanus's challenges that ORS 163.150 lacked meaningful judicial review or required comparative sentencing review.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fanus's motions for a change of venue because the record did not establish such community prejudice that he could not receive a fair and impartial trial.
5. The trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by refusing to excuse Ocumpaugh for cause because, after questioning, she demonstrated that she could apply the presumption of innocence, require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and decide the case impartially based solely on trial evidence.
6. Even assuming the prosecutor misstated the law by suggesting an all-or-nothing choice, the trial court's failure to issue a curative instruction or declare a sua sponte mistrial was not plain error because the isolated statement was corrected by subsequent argument and accurate jury instructions and was not so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial.
7. Evidence of Fanus's racist and Nazi beliefs was relevant to future dangerousness and was not unfairly prejudicial under OEC 403 because the state also presented evidence that he had engaged in dangerous or criminal conduct connected to those beliefs.
8. Admission of evidence concerning Fanus's racist and Nazi beliefs did not violate the First Amendment because the evidence was relevant to an issue being decided in the penalty proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fanus could raise facial constitutional challenges to Oregon's aggravated-murder death-penalty provisions by pretrial demurrer.
2. Whether ORS 163.150(1)(a) and ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) (1997) violated the Eighth Amendment by inadequately limiting aggravating evidence considered in deciding whether to impose death.
3. Whether Oregon's death-penalty statute permitted meaningful judicial review and required comparative sentencing review.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying motions for a change of venue based on prejudicial pretrial publicity.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to excuse a prospective juror for actual bias.
6. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument warranted plain-error relief, a curative instruction, or a sua sponte mistrial.
7. Whether evidence of Fanus's racist and Nazi beliefs was relevant and admissible during the penalty phase under Oregon evidence law.
8. Whether admission of that evidence violated the First Amendment.
9. Whether the indictment constitutionally alleged an offense making Fanus eligible for the death penalty.

Disposition

affirmed