State of Oregon v. Jason Van Brumwell, 350 Or. 93

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon, sitting en banc, affirmed Jason Van Brumwell’s conviction and sentence of death for aggravated murder. The court held that evidence concerning satanism and death metal music was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial during the penalty phase because it bore on the defendant’s motives, future dangerousness, and culpability. The court also rejected his state constitutional challenge to admission of that evidence.

Holdings

1. Evidence of Brumwell's interest in satanism and death metal music was relevant to the penalty-phase issues because the evidence could connect those interests to the Dari Mart crimes, bear on future dangerousness, bear on culpability, and constitute aggravating evidence relevant to the death-sentence determination.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the satanism and death metal evidence because its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
3. Admission of evidence of satanism to prove motive did not violate the Oregon Constitution because the trial court applied a religion-neutral rule that evidence of motive is generally admissible.
4. The First Amendment did not bar admission of the satanism and death metal evidence because it was introduced to prove the motive for specific violent crimes, not merely Brumwell's abstract beliefs.
5. ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) is not facially unconstitutional merely because it does not expressly require juror unanimity concerning the specific aggravating evidence considered in answering the fourth penalty-phase question.
6. An alleged unconstitutional application of ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) could not be raised by demurrer; Brumwell failed to preserve the issue because he did not request a jury instruction requiring unanimity concerning aggravating evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence of Brumwell's interest in satanism and death metal music was relevant to the penalty-phase questions concerning future dangerousness, aggravating evidence, and whether death was the appropriate sentence.
2. Whether the probative value of the satanism and death metal evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under OEC 403.
3. Whether admitting the evidence violated Brumwell's rights to freedom of religion, association, or expression under the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment.
4. Whether ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) was facially unconstitutional because it did not require jurors to agree unanimously on the specific aggravating evidence considered in answering whether the defendant should receive a death sentence.
5. Whether the alleged unconstitutional application of ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) could be raised by demurrer.

Disposition

affirmed