State v. Evans

                                773

         Submitted November 24, 2020, affirmed March 10, 2021


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                ROBERT EDWARD EVANS,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                Douglas County Circuit Court
                   18CR29878; A170967
                             

   Ann Marie Simmons, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
774                                           State v. Evans

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of
unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of ORS 164.135
(Count 1) and unlawful possession of methamphetamine,
ORS 475.894(2)(b) (Count 3). On appeal, defendant claims
that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of the state’s case-in-chief,
(2) refusing to provide the “less satisfactory evidence” jury
instruction contained in UCrJI 1030, (3) providing jury
instructions that allowed for nonunanimous verdicts, and
(4) providing the jury with a verdict return form that allowed
for nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion the
first and second assignments of error.
         In the third assignment, defendant asserts that
instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous
verdicts constituted a structural error requiring reversal.
In the related fourth assignment, defendant contends that
providing the jury a verdict return form allowing nonunanimous verdicts was similarly 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 is not a structural error that categorically
requires reversal. State v. Flores Ramos, 

,

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

, 

 (2020). Since the nonunanimous instruction was rendered harmless by the unanimous verdicts, it
follows that providing the jury verdict return form allowing nonunanimous verdicts is similarly harmless. Flores
Ramos, 

. Therefore, we reject defendant’s third
and fourth assignments of error.
        Affirmed.