The Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Joshua Russell Schoen for multiple counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and first-degree sexual abuse. The court ruled on May 28, 2026, affirming the trial court's decision despite Schoen's claims of legal errors during his trial. This ruling affects Schoen, who was convicted of abusing his stepdaughter, and it underscores the court's stance on serious sexual offenses against minors.
In this case, Schoen was convicted of four counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse against his stepdaughter, identified as T, when she was just seven or eight years old. The case was brought to the Clackamas County Circuit Court, where Judge Ann M. Lininger presided. Schoen opted for a bench trial, meaning a judge rather than a jury would decide his fate. During the trial, T testified that Schoen had inserted his fingers into her vagina on four separate occasions.
The state charged Schoen through an indictment, and he was found guilty as charged. At sentencing, Schoen's defense argued that the convictions for first-degree sexual abuse should merge with the convictions for first-degree unlawful sexual penetration for each of the four incidents. However, the trial court rejected this argument and imposed a total sentence of 300 months in prison, with 300-month sentences for the unlawful sexual penetration convictions and 75-month sentences for the sexual abuse convictions, all to run concurrently.
Schoen raised eight assignments of error on appeal, claiming that the trial court made significant mistakes, including failing to merge the guilty verdicts and imposing a disproportionately long sentence. He also submitted a pro se supplemental assignment of error challenging the admission of expert witness testimony during the trial.
The court ruled that Schoen's arguments regarding the merger of convictions were not preserved for appeal. His initial argument at sentencing focused on the elements of the crimes rather than the constitutional issues he raised later. The court noted, "Defendant does not reprise that argument before us, and it was insufficient to preserve the constitutional arguments that he now raises on appeal."
Regarding the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, Schoen contended that the imposition of multiple convictions for one penetrative act was unconstitutional. The court disagreed, stating that the concurrent nature of the sentences meant there was no obvious violation of the Eighth Amendment. The opinion stated, "It is not obvious that the trial court’s imposition of two convictions for each penetrative act resulted in an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment."
The court also addressed Schoen's reliance on a previous Supreme Court decision, noting that the situation in his case was not analogous. The court explained that the disparity in punishment highlighted in the earlier case did not apply here since Schoen’s sentences were served concurrently, and thus, there was no significant difference in the length of his sentence.
Additionally, Schoen argued that it was a violation of the Oregon Constitution for him to be treated differently based on his sentencing date compared to others who could benefit from the merger provisions of a new law. However, the court found that this argument did not hold up under scrutiny, stating that the class identified by Schoen was a nontrue class created by the statute itself.
On the issue of the proportionality of his sentence, the court ruled that the trial court did not plainly err in imposing the 300-month sentences. The court cited previous cases where similar sentences had been upheld, reinforcing that Schoen's claims did not qualify for plain error review.
Lastly, Schoen challenged the admission of the medical examiner’s testimony, arguing it was unfairly prejudicial due to a lack of corroborating physical evidence. The court found that the examiner did not provide a medical diagnosis of sexual abuse and that her testimony was not unfairly prejudicial under the relevant legal standards.
The court concluded by affirming the trial court’s decisions, stating, "Affirmed." This ruling reinforces the legal consequences of serious sexual offenses against minors and highlights the court's commitment to upholding convictions in such cases.
Looking ahead, Schoen's options for appeal are limited, as the Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's ruling. There is no indication of a related case pending that would affect this ruling. The decision emphasizes the importance of legal representation and the complexities involved in sexual abuse cases.