310 Or. App. 206 - State v. Gilpin

                                 206

 Argued and submitted August 31, 2020, reversed and remanded March 24,
           petition for review denied July 29, 2021 (

368 Or 511

)


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                STEVEN DANIEL GILPIN,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Clackamas County Circuit Court
                   16CR78633; A169300

483 P3d 1222



  Susie L. Norby, Judge.
   Ryan E. Scott argued the cause for appellant. On the
brief was Laura Graser.
   Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Reversed and remanded.
Cite as

310 Or App 206

 (2021)                           207

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was found guilty by nonunanimous jury
verdicts of second-degree manslaughter, driving under the
influence of intoxicants, and several other serious misdemeanors related to a 2016 motorcycle crash. On appeal,
defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) denying
his motion to dismiss for double jeopardy, (2) providing an
amended definition of the term “recklessly” to the jury, and
(3) instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous
verdicts. We reject the assignment related to double jeopardy without written discussion, and, because we reverse
and remand based on the nonunanimous jury verdicts, we
do not reach the second assignment.
         In the third assignment, defendant contends that
the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could
return nonunanimous verdicts. As to that argument,
defendant—as the state concedes—is correct. The United
States Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana,

590 US ___

140 S Ct 1390

206 L Ed 2d 583

 (2020), that nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth
Amendment. After that ruling, the Oregon Supreme Court
explained that, when an assignment of error regarding a
nonunanimous verdict was preserved in the trial court and
a jury poll established that the verdict was not unanimous,
the error requires reversal. State v. Flores Ramos,

367 Or 292, 297

478 P3d 515

 (2020); see also State v. Scott,

309 Or App 615, 619

483 P3d 701

 (2021) (holding that requesting a
unanimous instruction and excepting to the nonunanimous
instruction given the jury was sufficient to preserve the
argument). Because defendant here preserved his argument
and the jury was not unanimous for any of the counts of
conviction, we correct the error for the reasons set forth in
Flores Ramos.
        Reversed and remanded.