Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

309 Or. App. 782

State v. McCrary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 10, 2021

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2021-03-10

Applies OR 164 § 164.045 · OR 164 § 164.215

Affirmed · Decided 2021-03-10

                                    782

 Submitted September 29, 2020, affirmed March 10, petition for review denied
                        July 15, 2021 (
368 Or 402
)


                     STATE OF OREGON,
                      Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                v.
                 DATHAN JUDE McCRARY,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                Multnomah County Circuit Court
                     18CR81432; A170317
                                
482 P3d 816


   Thomas M. Ryan, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as 
309 Or App 782
 (2021)                            783

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was convicted by unanimous jury verdicts of second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215, and second-degree theft, ORS 164.045. He argues on appeal that the
trial court erred in failing to give his requested instruction
on the meaning of the term, “open to the public,” and plainly
erred in instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion defendant’s
first argument. With respect to 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, his convictions by unanimous
verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana,
590 US ___
, 
140 S Ct 1390
, 
206 L Ed 2d 583
 (2020), because
the error constitutes structural error. In a memorandum of
additional authorities, the state notes that that argument
was rejected in State v. Chorney-Phillips, 
367 Or 355
, 
478 P3d 504
 (2020), and its companion cases. We reject defendant’s argument for the reasons set forth in those cases.
        Affirmed.

/309/orapp/782 · .json · Public domain