State v. Mailman

                                      158

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed March 26, 2020; reconsideration
allowed, former opinion (

, 

) modified and adhered to
                          as modified February 3, 2021


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
               ANTHONY MORGAN MAILMAN,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
                 Union County Circuit Court
                     M21794; A162173
                                  

   Russell B. West, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Erin J. Snyder Severe, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and
James, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
  Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.
Cite as 

 (2021)                             159

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of
our opinion in State v. Mailman, 

, 

 (2020). In our original opinion, we neglected to rule on
the assignments of error raised in defendant’s supplemental brief, wherein defendant challenged the trial court’s
instruction that the jury could reach a nonunanimous verdict. Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, asking us
to address his supplemental assignments of error. We held
our decision pending resolution of Ramos v. Louisiana, 

, 

, 

 (2020), as well as
cases subsequently taken under advisement by the Oregon
Supreme Court that presented Ramos issues.
          Those cases have now issued, and one of them, State
v. Dilallo, 

, 

 (2020), is controlling. At
trial, defendant did not object to the instruction, nor was the
jury polled. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s unpreserved
argument in light of Dilallo.
       Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified
and adhered to as modified.