STATE v. MYERS (2021)

Defendant was found guilty by unanimous jury verdict of multiple felonies and a misdemeanor stemming from a sexual assault of his estranged wife. On appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying the motions for judgment of acquittal for various counts, admitting evidence that should have been suppressed, and providing jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. Defendant also makes numerous pro se assignments of error related to admission of evidence from a mobile phone, misconduct by law enforcement officers and prosecutors, and insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. We reject without written discussion all of the assignments of error except that related to the nonunanimous jury instruction.

With respect to the nonunanimous jury instruction, defendant asserts that instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts constituted a structural error requiring reversal. After the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d. 583 (2020), that nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth Amendment, the Oregon Supreme Court explained that, although giving the nonunanimous jury instruction was error, it 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 verdict was 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). Therefore, we reject defendant's arguments concerning the nonunanimous jury instruction.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM