State v. Camphouse

501 P.3d 103, 316 Or. App. 278

Opinion

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed October 26; reconsideration allowed, former opinion (313 Or App 109, 491 P3d 94) modified and adhered to as modified December 8, 2021; petition for review denied April 21, 2022 (369 Or 675)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VICTORIA LOIS CAMPHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 17CR26451; A170081 501 P3d 103

DeAnn L. Novotny, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. Cite as 316 Or App 278 (2021) 279

PER CURIAM Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opin- ion in State v. Camphouse, 313 Or App 109, 491 P3d 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 reconsider- ation and modify the text of our prior opinion in the follow- ing two ways. First, we replace the two paragraphs regarding “Mistreatment of D,” id. at 117-18, with the following: “With respect to the count involving D, defendant argues that some jurors may have based their verdict on unspec- ified 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 id. at 118, 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.