State v. Schaefer

                                591

         Submitted November 23, 2020, affirmed March 3, 2021


                 STATE OF OREGON,
                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
              LLOYD HOWARD SCHAEFER,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
               Marion County Circuit Court
                  18CR43780; A170775
                            

  Lindsay R. Partridge, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and
Aoyagi, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
592                                         State v. Schaefer

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of one
count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of ORS
164.135. On appeal, in two assignments of error, defendant
asserts that the trial court erred by (1) denying a motion for
judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case-in-chief
and (2) providing jury instructions allowing a nonunanimous verdict. We reject without discussion the first assignment of error.
         In his second assignment, defendant asserts that
the jury instruction for a nonunanimous verdict constituted a structural error. Subsequent to the United States
Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 

,

, 

 (2020), the Oregon Supreme
Court explained that nonunanimous jury instruction was
not a structural error that categorically requires reversal.
State v. Flores Ramos, 

, 

 (2020).
Additionally, when, as here, the jury’s verdict is unanimous
despite the nonunanimous instruction, the Oregon Supreme
Court has determined that the erroneous instruction is
“harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ciraulo, 

, 

 (2020). Therefore, we reject defendant’s second assignment of error.
        Affirmed.