State v. Gomez
| Decision Date | 14 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | A172493 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Omar GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Adam L. Dean, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Dean Law Group, P.C.
Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for four sex offenses, raising three assignments of error. We affirm.
Defendant's first two assignments of error challenge the trial court's admission of a video recording of the victim's initial report to the police. The court admitted the recording under OEC 803(26) ’s domestic-violence hearsay exception, and defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in doing so. But, as the state points out, in the trial court, defendant never contested that the recording was admissible under OEC 803(26). Defendant's only objection was that it should not be admitted because it "is duplicative, it's cumulative." Consequently, defendant's contentions regarding OEC 803(26) are not preserved for our review and we reject them for that reason.1
In his third assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his jury waiver. He argues that his waiver was invalid and involuntary because Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), had not been decided yet and, consequently, proceeding with a jury trial under Oregon law meant that he would be acceding to a violation of his incorporated Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution right to have the jury reach a unanimous verdict to convict. But the record is silent as to what role, if any, the presence or absence of a unanimity requirement may have played in defendant's decision to waive jury and, consequently, is insufficient to allow for meaningful review of defendant's claim that his waiver was essentially compelled by Oregon's practice of allowing juries to convict by nonunanimous verdicts. We reject defendant's third assignment of error for that reason.
Affirmed.
1 Defendant has not argued that the alleged errors qualify as plain errors.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Austin, A173041
...first and second assignments of error without discussion and write only to address his third and fourth assignments. In State v. Gomez, 310 Or.App. 693, 694, 485 P.3d 314 (2021), the defendant argued that the trial court plainly erred by accepting his jury waiver, which he contended was "in......
-
State v. Austin
...by Oregon's pre-Ramos practice of allowing convictions based on nonunanimous jury verdicts. Id. Defendant acknowledges our decision in Gomez but argues Gomez involved the voluntariness of a pre-Ramos jury waiver, whereas the issue here is whether defendant's pre-Ramos jury waiver was "knowi......
-
State v. Willis
...seventh and eighth assignments of error are foreclosed by State v. Austin, 316 Or.App. 56, 501 P.3d 1136 (2021), and State v. Gomez, 310 Or.App. 693, 485 P.3d 314 (2021). In defendant's first through sixth assignments of error, defendant challenges special conditions of probation that were ......
- State v. Akins