State v. Snyder

                                363

           Submitted April 2, 2020, affirmed March 31, 2021


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                DENICE MARIE SNYDER,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   17CR66061; A169314
                             

  Karin Johana Immergut, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge,
and Kamins, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
364                                          State v. Snyder

        PER CURIAM
         A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of one
count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135. On
appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by
(1) denying the motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) providing jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts.
We reject the first contention without written discussion.
         As for the second, defendant asserts that instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts constituted a structural error requiring reversal. Subsequent
to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v.
Louisiana, 

, 

, 

(2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that the delivery of a 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 was unanimous despite the
nonunanimous instruction, such an erroneous instruction
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kincheloe,

, 

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