State v. Osborne

                                346

       Submitted December 22, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021


                  STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                KRISTY LEE OSBORNE,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
               Douglas County Circuit Court
                  18CR24262; A171377
                            

  Frances Elaine Burge, Judge.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2021)                            347

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was found guilty upon jury verdict on
one count of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer,
in violation of ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A) (Count 1) and one count
of reckless driving, ORS 811.140 (Count 2). The jury was
instructed that it need not be unanimous, but notwithstanding such instruction the jury’s verdict was determined
to be unanimous for both counts upon polling by the trial
court. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of
her motion to substitute counsel and to the nonunanimous
jury instruction. We reject without discussion the argument
concerning the motion for substitute counsel.
         Defendant contends that in light of the United
States Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 

, 

, 

 (2020), the judgment on
the jury verdicts must be reversed as structural error. For
the reasons the Oregon Supreme Court explained in State v.
Flores Ramos, 

, 

 (2020), we reject
the argument that the nonunanimous jury instruction constitutes structural error. As the Oregon Supreme Court
explained, even though the nonunanimous jury instruction
was erroneous in light of Ramos, because the verdicts for
each count of conviction were unanimous, such error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ciraulo, 

, 

 (2020).
        Affirmed.