STATE v. BELGARDE (2021)

Defendant was found guilty by unanimous jury verdict on one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, in two assignments of error, defendant claims that the trial court (1) erred by denying a motion for judgment of acquittal, and (2) plainly erred by providing jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without written discussion the first assignment of error.

In the second assignment, 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, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that a nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal in every case. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 319, 478 P.3d 515 (2020). Additionally, when, as here, the jury's verdicts were unanimous despite the nonunanimous instruction, such erroneous instruction was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or. 350, 354, 478 P.3d 502 (2020); see also State v. Chorney-Phillips, 367 Or. 355, 359, 478 P.3d 504 (2020) (declining to exercise discretion to review as plain error an unpreserved nonunanimous instruction when the verdict was unanimous). Therefore, we reject defendant's second assignment of error.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM