STATE v. RICHARDSON (2019)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Brian Lee RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

A165406

Decided: October 02, 2019

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.

Defendant requests reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Richardson, 298 Or. App. 686, 444 P.3d 1147 (2019), bringing to our attention that we failed to address the supplemental assignment of error that he had raised in his supplemental brief. We allow reconsideration and modify our prior opinion to insert the following footnote at the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph:

“After the initial briefing was complete, defendant filed a supplemental brief that included a supplemental assignment of error that raised as plain error the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict. Defendant contends that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require unanimous jury verdicts. We reject that argument on the merits without further discussion.”

We adhere to our opinion as modified.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network