Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.450

Number of jurors required for verdict

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      136.450 Number of jurors required for verdict. (1) A jury in a criminal action may render a verdict of guilty only by unanimous agreement.

      (2) A jury in a criminal action may render a verdict of not guilty only by a concurrence of at least 10 of 12 jurors. [Formerly 136.610; 1997 c.313 §25; 2019 c.635 §8; 2021 c.478 §11]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Pipkin
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pipkin (2013) or · cites it 6× “095 [defining the crime of aggravated murder] or in ORS 136.450 [requiring jury unanimity in murder cases] requires or supports an instruction [permitting jurors to rely on a mix of aggravating circumstances] that, as Gipson notes, creates serious constitutional doubts.”
Watkins v. Ackley (2022) or · cites it 2× “610 (1953), renumbered as ORS 136.450 (1973), which governs unanimity requirements for juries in criminal cases.”
Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) scotus “I, §11 (amended May 18, 1934); Ore. Rev. Stat. §136.450 (1997); §136.610 (1971).”
State v. Ross (2021) or · cites it 3× “We agree with relator and issue a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to instruct the jury that Oregon law requires a unanimous guilty verdict for all charges and permits a not-guilty ver- dict by a vote of 11 to one or 10 to two.”
State v. Rodriguez-Castillo (2007) orctapp · cites it 4× “Analyzing the case under the jury unanimity requirements of the version of ORS 136.450 then in effect and Article I, section 11, the Supreme Court found error, concluding that each aggravating factor was an essential element of aggravated murder on which the jury must concur.”
State v. Boots (1989) or · cites it 2× “We must therefore decide this case in light of the command not only of ORS 136.450 but also of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution that capital (“first degree”) murder requires a unanimous verdict.”
Bouwkamp v. State (1992) wyo · cites it 2× “095 or in ORS 136.450 requires or supports an instruction that, as Gipson notes, creates serious constitutional doubts.”
State v. King (1993) or · cites it 2× “Boots relied for its conclusion upon provisions regarding murder trials in ORS 136.450 and upon Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution.”
State v. Ogden (1978) orctapp · cites it 2× “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.”
Richards v. Brown (2025) orctapp · cites it 24× “The legal premise underlying those allegations is that ORS 136.450 (2019), amended by Or Laws 2021, ch 478, § 11, required at least ten jurors to concur on the rejection of the EED defense because it provides, “The verdict of a trial jury in a criminal action shall be by…”
State v. Rennells (2007) orctapp “” 2 Defendant also raises three other assignments of error, each of which challenges the trial court’s instruction, corresponding to ORS 136.450(1), that, as to each of the charged counts, the jury could convict upon a concurrence of 10 jurors.”
State v. Pauley (2007) orctapp · cites it 2× “See Or Const, Art I, § ll; 2 ORS 136.450(1). 3 For example, he argues that “three jurors may have thought [that he] attempted to touch [the victim’s] vagina, three jurors may have thought [that he] attempted to make [the victim] touch his penis, and four jurors may have thought…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.450(1) — 7 cases
State v. Rennells (2007) orctapp “” 2 Defendant also raises three other assignments of error, each of which challenges the trial court’s instruction, corresponding to ORS 136.450(1), that, as to each of the charged counts, the jury could convict upon a concurrence of 10 jurors.”
State v. Pauley (2007) orctapp “See Or Const, Art I, § ll; 2 ORS 136.450(1). 3 For example, he argues that “three jurors may have thought [that he] attempted to touch [the victim’s] vagina, three jurors may have thought [that he] attempted to make [the victim] touch his penis, and four jurors may have thought…”
State v. Frey (2012) orctapp
State v. Phillips (2011) orctapp
State v. Pipkin (2011) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.450(2) — 1 case
State v. Randant (2004) orctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.