State v. Streeter

                                   162

Argued and submitted August 10, 2020, affirmed March 17, petition for review
                    denied July 29, 2021 (

)


                 STATE OF OREGON,
                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
          DEMARCO HERBERT LEE STREETER,
             aka Demarco Herbert Streeter,
             aka Demarko Herbert Streeter,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
            Multnomah County Circuit Court
                 16CR75318; A169205
                                

   Kelly Skye, Judge.
   Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, argued the
cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet,
Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
   Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General,
and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2021)                            163

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was found guilty by unanimous jury
verdict on one count of felon in possession of a firearm. On
appeal, in three assignments of error, defendant claims that
the trial court erred by (1) admitting a police interview of a
witness under the recorded recollection exception to hearsay rules, (2) failing to inform the jury which of two firearms the state elected as the subject of the unlawful possession charge, and (3) providing jury instructions allowing
nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without written 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.
After the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Ramos v.
Louisiana, 

, 

, 

(2020), that nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses
violate the Sixth Amendment, the Oregon Supreme Court
explained that nonunanimous jury instruction was not a
structural error that categorically requires reversal in every
case. State v. Flores Ramos, 

, 

(2020). Additionally, when, as here, the jury’s verdict was
unanimous despite the nonunanimous instruction, such
erroneous instruction was “harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt.” State v. Ciraulo, 

, 

 (2020).
We therefore reject defendant’s challenge to the nonunanimous jury instruction.
        Affirmed.