Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

309 Or. App. 320

State v. Chatelain

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 10, 2021

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2021-02-10

Affirmed · Decided 2021-02-10

                                320

         Submitted April 24, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021


                STATE OF OREGON,
                 Plaintiff-Respondent,
                           v.
             STEVEN PAUL CHATELAIN,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
           Washington County Circuit Court
          18CR13795, 16CR58250, 16CR58977;
          A168586 (Control), A168587, A168588
                             
481 P3d 407


  Andrew Erwin, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
Cite as 
309 Or App 320
 (2021)                            321

        PER CURIAM
         In one of these consolidated cases, defendant was
convicted by jury on two counts of fourth-degree assault
constituting domestic violence. In that case, the jury was
instructed that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, but
the jury was not polled. In the other consolidated cases,
defendant’s probation was revoked based on his new criminal activity. On appeal, defendant raises several assignments of error concerning trial matters in the assault case,
including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in
instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion all of defendant’s arguments concerning trial except his argument that the court
plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach
unanimous verdicts. Defendant contends that because of the
erroneous jury instruction, all verdicts must be reversed in
light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 
590 US ___
, 
140 S Ct 1390
, 
206 L Ed 2d 583
 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons
set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 
367 Or 292
, 
478 P3d 515
(2020), and State v. Dilallo, 
367 Or 340
, 
478 P3d 509
 (2020).
        Affirmed.

/309/orapp/320 · .json · Public domain