State v. Osborne

481 P.3d 439, 309 Or. App. 346

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: A171377
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted December 22, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTY LEE OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18CR24262; A171377 481 P3d 439

Frances Elaine Burge, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 346 (2021) 347

PER CURIAM Defendant was found guilty upon jury verdict on one count of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A) (Count 1) and one count of reckless driving, ORS 811.140 (Count 2). The jury was instructed that it need not be unanimous, but notwith- standing such instruction the jury’s verdict was determined to be unanimous for both counts upon polling by the trial court. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of her motion to substitute counsel and to the nonunanimous jury instruction. We reject without discussion the argument concerning the motion for substitute counsel. Defendant contends that in light of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the judgment on the jury verdicts must be reversed as structural error. For the reasons the Oregon Supreme Court explained in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 478 P3d 515 (2020), we reject the argument that the nonunanimous jury instruction con- stitutes structural error. As the Oregon Supreme Court explained, even though the nonunanimous jury instruction was erroneous in light of Ramos, because the verdicts for each count of conviction were unanimous, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or 350, 354, 478 P3d 502 (2020). Affirmed.