Court Opinion

ID: 9572377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:41:13.413087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:41.226649
License: Public Domain

LINDE, J.,
concurring.
In the instructions referred to in the court’s opinion, the trial court not only submitted to the jury two alternative theories of murder, only one of which was charged in the indictment; the court also told the jury that they could find the defendant guilty of murder though they did not agree whether it was intentional or felony murder.1 In effect, this would mean that a defendant could be found guilty of murder even though half the jurors did not believe he intentionally caused decedent’s death and the other half did not believe he committed the alleged felony. For instance, in the case of a victim’s death in a fire, a defendant might be found guilty of murder though half the jury believed that he intentionally killed the victim but did not set the fire while the other half believed he committed arson but did not even know there was a person in the building. Despite what is quoted in State v. Reyes from an opinion of the New York Court of Appeals,2 such an instruction cannot square with the requirement that ten members of a jury, or twelve in a murder case, must be convinced of the elements necessary to make out the crime charged beyond a *59reasonable doubt. Or Const art I, § 11; ORS 136.415, 136.450.
However, defendant objected only to the first aspect of the instruction stated above and did not pursue even that objection on appeal. Thus only the burglary sentence must be vacated.
Lent, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

 The court stated:
It is not necessary for all of you as jurors to agree on whether the Defendant committed intentional murder or felony murder so long as you unanimously agree that the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder; that is some of you could feel that the Defendant is guilty under one theory and some of you could feel that the Defendant is guilty under another theory and you could still agree on a verdict provided you all agree that one way or the other a murder was committed by the Defendant.

 People v. Sullivan, 173 NY 122, 127, 65 NE 989, 989 (1903), quoted in State v. Reyes, 209 Or 595, 621-622, 308 P2d 182 (1957). Reyes itself only held that a jury could be instructed on felony murder under an indictment charging intentional murder, the opposite of the present situation. The question how this squares with the supposed role of the grand jury was not discussed.