Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution does not require a jury of at least 10 members in criminal cases. Instead, the provision authorizes nonunanimous verdicts when a 12-person jury is used. The court further held that a six-person jury was permissible in the defendant’s misdemeanor reckless-driving trial under Article VII (Amended), section 9, and ORS 136.210(2).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution requires a jury of at least ten persons in every criminal case tried in circuit court.
- Whether Article VII (Amended), section 9, authorizes the legislature to provide for six-person juries in misdemeanor criminal trials.
- Whether ORS 136.210(2), requiring a six-person jury when the only charges tried in a circuit-court criminal case are misdemeanors, is constitutional.
Holdings
- Article I, section 11, does not impose a constitutional minimum jury size of ten or more in every criminal case. Its reference to ten members concerns the number of jurors who may render a valid verdict when a court uses a twelve-person jury, except in first-degree murder cases, which require unanimity.
- Article VII (Amended), section 9, authorizes the legislature to provide for juries consisting of between six and twelve jurors in all Oregon courts and in civil and criminal cases. ORS 136.210(2) validly requires a six-person jury when the only charges tried in a circuit-court criminal case are misdemeanors.
Key quotations
“That provision does not impose a constitutional requirement for a jury of 10 or more persons in every criminal trial.” (at 653)
“Thus, the text, context, and history of Article VII (Amended), section 9, show that it was intended to grant discretionary authority to the legislature to provide for juries of six to 12 members in all Oregon courts and in both civil and criminal cases, but not to grant authority to legislate as to jury unanimity.” (at 653)
Factual background
Police found Sagdal apparently unconscious in a stopped vehicle with the engine running in a public-road turn lane. He failed field sobriety tests and later agreed to an Intoxilyzer breath test that showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.30. He was tried only on the reckless-driving misdemeanor after resolving a separate driving-under-the-influence charge through a no-contest plea and diversion.
Procedural history
Sagdal was charged with reckless driving, a misdemeanor, and was convicted by a unanimous six-person jury in Multnomah County Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court allowed review. The Supreme Court affirmed both the Court of Appeals decision and the circuit court judgment.