State v. Chatelain

481 P.3d 407, 309 Or. App. 320

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: A168586
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted April 24, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STEVEN PAUL CHATELAIN, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 18CR13795, 16CR58250, 16CR58977; A168586 (Control), A168587, A168588 481 P3d 407

Andrew Erwin, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 320 (2021) 321

PER CURIAM In one of these consolidated cases, defendant was convicted by jury on two counts of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence. In that case, the jury was instructed that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, but the jury was not polled. In the other consolidated cases, defendant’s probation was revoked based on his new crim- inal activity. On appeal, defendant raises several assign- ments of error concerning trial matters in the assault case, including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous ver- dicts. We reject without discussion all of defendant’s argu- ments concerning trial except his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. Defendant contends that because of the erroneous jury instruction, all verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020), and State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 478 P3d 509 (2020). Affirmed.