State v. Guenther

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Guenther

484 P.3d 395, 310 Or. App. 365

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 31, 2021

DocketA169684

StatusPublished

This text of 484 P.3d 395 (State v. Guenther) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Guenther, 484 P.3d 395, 310 Or. App. 365 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 9, 2020, affirmed March 31, petition for review denied July 29, 2021 (368 Or 511)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JERED ALBERT GUENTHER, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 17CR04735; A169684 484 P3d 395

Lindsay R. Partridge, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 366 State v. Guenther

PER CURIAM A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal and, additionally, in failing to prop- erly instruct the jury in several respects. We reject without written discussion all of the assignments of error except the final two, which concern nonunanimous jury instructions. In the fifth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict and, in the sixth, by publishing a verdict form to the jury allowing the same. Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 478 P3d 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 P3d 502 (2020). Since the nonunanimous instruction was rendered harmless by the unanimous ver- dict, it follows that providing the jury verdict return form allowing a nonunanimous verdict was similarly harmless. Flores Ramos, 367 Or at 319. Therefore, we reject defen- dant’s fifth and sixth assignments of error. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Submitted September 9, 2020, affirmed March 31, petition for review denied July 29, 2021 (368 Or 511)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JERED ALBERT GUENTHER, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 17CR04735; A169684 484 P3d 395

Lindsay R. Partridge, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 366 State v. Guenther

PER CURIAM A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal and, additionally, in failing to prop- erly instruct the jury in several respects. We reject without written discussion all of the assignments of error except the final two, which concern nonunanimous jury instructions. In the fifth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict and, in the sixth, by publishing a verdict form to the jury allowing the same. Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 478 P3d 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 P3d 502 (2020). Since the nonunanimous instruction was rendered harmless by the unanimous ver- dict, it follows that providing the jury verdict return form allowing a nonunanimous verdict was similarly harmless. Flores Ramos, 367 Or at 319. Therefore, we reject defen- dant’s fifth and sixth assignments of error. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 395, 310 Or. App. 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-guenther-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack