Court Opinion

ID: 9557820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:58:24.86299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:33.388377
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
This is an issue of first impression in Oregon.
*103In my view the challenged instructions were a correct statement of the law in this state and are completely consistent with ORS 136.460, 136.465, 131.515 and 136.450.
As our Supreme Court held in State v. Steeves, 29 Or 85, 43 P 947 (1896), before finding an accused guilty of an inferior crime, the jury must first determine his guilt or innocence of the charge set forth in the indictment. That determination amounts to a verdict upon that charge, and pursuant to ORS 136.450, requires the concurrence of at least 10 of the 12 jurors, except in a verdict for murder, which must be unanimous.
As the Attorney General argues, requiring a 10 to 2 vote of the jury before proceeding to consider a lesser included offense is no more coercive or restrictive than requiring the same number to find defendant guilty of the lesser offense. I agree.
Contrary to the majority, I am unwilling to invalidate our long accepted practice in this regard and embrace the rule adopted in those cases from other jurisdictions cited and relied upon in the majority opinion.
I believe that an analysis of those decisions would show that in most, if not all, the statutory background and procedures in those jurisdictions are at variance with the statutes in this state covering such matters.
For the above reasons I respectfully dissent.