STATE v. CAMPHOUSE (2021)

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Camphouse, 313 Or. App. 109, 491 P.3d 94 (2021), asserting that we misunderstood the evidence and defendant's arguments regarding one of the victims, D. We adhere to our disposition of the case but allow reconsideration and modify the text of our prior opinion in the following two ways.

First, we replace the two paragraphs regarding “Mistreatment of D,” at 313 Or. App. at 117-18, 491 P.3d 94, with the following:

“With respect to the count involving D, defendant argues that some jurors may have based their verdict on unspecified occurrences described in a neighbor's testimony, rather than the occurrence focused on by the state. Even assuming the trial court's failure to provide a concurrence instruction as to D was in error, we conclude that it was harmless for the same reasons it was harmless as to O.”

Second, in the opinion's conclusion at 313 Or. App. at 118, 491 P.3d 94, we replace “and because the trial court did not err as to the charge involving D” with “and any error as to D was harmless as well.” As described in the above modifications, we adhere to our previous disposition.

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

PER CURIAM