State v. Tallman
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Manns (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Submitted March 9; convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed April 7, 2021
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EMILY TALLMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR41142; A170902
484 P3d 1132 Melvin Oden-Orr, Judge.
Lindsey Burrows and O’Connor Weber LLC filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge.
PER CURIAM Convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as 310 Or App 576 (2021) 577
PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of fourteen counts of first- degree theft, ORS 164.055, and seven counts of aggravated first-degree theft, ORS 164.057.1 The convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 were by nonunanimous jury ver- dict. Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction, raising three assignments of error. We reject her first assignment without discussion. In her second and third assignments of error, she contends that the trial court erred under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by instruct- ing the jury that it could return nonunanimous guilty ver- dicts and by receiving nonunanimous verdicts. Defendant asks us to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial as to Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12.
In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. The state concedes that because the con- victions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 were not the result of unanimous verdicts, those convictions should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession.
Convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; other- wise affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.