STATE v. SLOVER (2021)

Defendant was convicted by jury of murder and first-degree robbery. The jury was instructed that it needed to reach a unanimous verdict on the murder count and that it need not reach a unanimous verdict on the robbery count. The jury indicated that it was unanimous on the murder count and that the verdict on the robbery count was at least 10-2, but the jury was not polled. Defendant raises an evidentiary challenge on appeal, and also makes an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion defendant's evidentiary argument. With respect to his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach a unanimous verdict on the robbery count, defendant contends that because of the erroneous jury instruction, both the murder and robbery verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 478 P.3d 515 (2020) and State v. Dilallo, 367 Or. 340, 478 P.3d 509 (2020).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM