Background
Steven Jay Decker was convicted by a jury of fifteen counts of first-degree sexual abuse. After the verdicts were read, the trial court polled the jury. Juror #10 stated that a guilty verdict on all fifteen counts was not his individual verdict, prompting the court to note “an 11 to 1 verdict.” After the jurors were released, Juror #1 approached the court to say her “yes” response had been a mistake—she had in fact voted guilty on only six counts and not guilty on the remaining nine. The court did not clarify which specific counts were affected.
Decker sought post-conviction relief under Oregon’s Post-Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), arguing that his convictions rested on nonunanimous verdicts rendered unconstitutional by Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83 (2020). The post-conviction court denied relief, finding Decker had not met his burden—by a preponderance of the evidence—to show which specific verdicts were nonunanimous, because “it is not possible to determine which Counts were not unanimous” on the record presented.
The Oregon Court of Appeals granted en banc review. Ten judges joined the majority opinion authored by Judge Kamins; Judges Aoyagi and Shorr dissented.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc majority reversed, holding that the post-conviction court’s finding—that Decker failed to meet his burden of proof—was not supported by the record. The court explained that under State v. A.R.H., a reviewing court must accept a trial court’s burden-of-proof finding unless the record compels a different conclusion. Here, the record compelled the opposite conclusion: Juror #1’s post-poll statement that she voted not guilty on nine counts was unambiguous and, combined with a formal jury poll that had already revealed a nonunanimous verdict, established with absolute certainty that at least nine of the fifteen convictions rested on nonunanimous verdicts.
The majority carefully distinguished Cam v. Pedro and Mandell v. Miller, where no definitive jury poll had been obtained. In those cases, granting relief would have created an inequitable “anomaly” by rewarding defendants who failed to request a poll. Here, by contrast, a poll was requested and obtained, and it produced specific, dispositive evidence of nonunanimity on at least nine counts. The majority also rejected the dissent’s narrower reading of ORS 138.530(1)(a), concluding the statute focuses on a substantial denial of constitutional rights in the proceedings—not a conviction-by-conviction accounting—and that the term “conviction” appears across all four statutory grounds for relief simply because such claims arise after judgment is entered.
The court reversed and remanded with instructions to the post-conviction court to fashion a remedy that is “proper and just” under ORS 138.520, leaving open whether that remedy must be a new trial on all fifteen counts or something more limited. The majority declined to prescribe the form of relief, emphasizing the post-conviction court’s broad remedial discretion recognized in prior Oregon Supreme Court decisions.
Key Takeaways
- A jury poll that definitively reveals nonunanimous votes is “dispositive” evidence satisfying a post-conviction petitioner’s burden of proof under the PCHA; the same record that makes relief available in a direct appeal will support relief in post-conviction proceedings.
- Oregon’s anomaly-avoidance principle—protecting defendants who obtained a poll from being disadvantaged compared to those who did not—cuts the other way here: defendants who secured a revealing poll are in a stronger position, not a worse one.
- The post-conviction court retains broad discretion to fashion relief tailored to “actual prejudice,” and a new trial on all counts is not the only permissible remedy in a multi-count nonunanimous-verdict case.
- Judges Aoyagi and Shorr dissented, arguing the statute demands conviction-specific proof, that the majority effectively overruled Cam without saying so, and that the open-ended remand will generate inconsistent results across trial courts.
Why It Matters
The decision provides the clearest statement to date in Oregon on what evidence is sufficient to satisfy the post-conviction petitioner’s burden in a standalone Ramos claim: a jury poll that affirmatively identifies nonunanimous votes is enough. Defense attorneys handling post-conviction matters in multi-count cases where a poll was taken—and where jurors subsequently clarified their votes—now have a well-defined path to relief for at least those counts the record can pin down as nonunanimous.
The case also leaves unresolved questions that are likely to return. The dissent’s concern that leaving the remedy undefined will produce inconsistent outcomes among trial courts is well-founded; a follow-on appeal on the proper scope of relief on remand seems probable. And the majority’s statutory reading—that ORS 138.530(1)(a) does not require conviction-by-conviction proof before relief attaches—sets up a direct conflict with the dissent’s analysis that may eventually require Oregon Supreme Court resolution.