Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Garrett

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 18, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
YASMIN RENEE GARRETT, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted June 29, 2017

          Washington County Circuit Court C142629CR; KIRSTEN E. THOMPSON, JUDGE.

          Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Garrett, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for assaulting a public safety officer, ORS 163.208. At trial, the jury disclosed to the trial court during deliberations that it was divided despite being instructed not to do so; in response, the trial court issued an additional instruction to the jury. On appeal, defendant argues that that instruction was coercive in violation of her constitutional right to a fair trial. Defendant also challenges the trial court's denial of her motion for a mistrial after the additional instruction was issued. She argues that a mistrial was necessary both because the additional instruction was coercive and because the jury demonstrated an inability to follow instructions. Held: The trial court did not err in issuing the instruction or by denying defendant's motion for mistrial. Under the circumstances, the instruction was not coercive. Further, mistrial was not necessary because the jury's single disclosure of its

         [292 Or.App. 861] divided posture did not tend to show an "overwhelming probability" that the jury could not follow instructions.

         Affirmed.

         [292 Or.App. 862] GARRETT, P. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for assaulting a public safety officer. We write to address defendant's first and second assignments of error, and reject her third assignment without discussion. In her first assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in issuing a supplemental jury instruction after the jury disclosed during deliberations that it was divided. In her second assignment, defendant challenges the trial court's denial of her motion for a mistrial after the supplemental instruction was issued. We affirm.

         Defendant was an inmate at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility. While she was under "suicide watch," she engaged in an altercation with a corrections officer that resulted in an injury to the officer's hand. She was charged with assaulting a public safety officer, ORS 163.208. [1]

         After closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury, in part:

         "Do not allow anything I've said or done during the course of this trial to suggest that I have formed any opinion about this case.

"*** [D]o not tell anyone, including me, how many of you are voting not guilty or guilty until you have reached a lawful verdict or have been discharged."

         The jury began deliberations around 11:30 a.m., and, at some point, took a lunch break for an unknown amount of time. Sometime before 4:00 p.m., [2] the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.