STATE v. STEWART (2021)

In these consolidated appeals, defendant seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction based on unanimous jury verdicts of one count each of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and identity theft, ORS 165.800.¹ Defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, imposition of a partially consecutive sentence for the convictions, and instruction to the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without written discussion all of the assignments of error except that related to the nonunanimous jury instruction.

Regarding the giving of a nonunanimous jury instruction, defendant asserts that it was a structural error that requires 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. 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 an erroneous instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or. 335, 339, 478 P.3d 507 (2020).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In Case No. A170993, defendant separately appealed a judgment of contempt, but has raised no separate challenges to that judgment.

PER CURIAM