310 Or. App. 365 - State v. Guenther

                                   365

 Submitted September 9, 2020, affirmed March 31, petition for review denied
                        July 29, 2021 (

368 Or 511

)


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                JERED ALBERT GUENTHER,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
                 Marion County Circuit Court
                    17CR04735; A169684

484 P3d 395



   Lindsay R. Partridge, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
366                                       State v. Guenther

        PER CURIAM
         A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of
third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395. On appeal, defendant
contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion for
judgment of acquittal and, additionally, in failing to properly instruct the jury in several respects. We reject without
written discussion all of the assignments of error except the
final two, which concern nonunanimous jury instructions.
          In the fifth assignment of error, defendant argues
that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it
could return a nonunanimous verdict and, in the sixth, by
publishing a verdict form to the jury allowing the same.
Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling
in Ramos v. Louisiana,

590 US ___

140 S Ct 1390

206 L Ed 2d 583

 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained
that nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural
error that categorically requires reversal. State v. Flores
Ramos,

367 Or 292, 319

478 P3d 515

 (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,

367 Or 350, 354

478 P3d 502

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

367 Or at 319

. Therefore, we reject defendant’s fifth and sixth assignments of error.
        Affirmed.