State v. Slover

481 P.3d 409, 309 Or. App. 326

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: A168803
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted April 24, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREW JAMES SLOVER, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 13C47289; A168803 481 P3d 409

Cheryl A. Pellegrini, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, 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 Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 326 (2021) 327

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by jury of murder and first-degree robbery. The jury was instructed that it needed to reach a unanimous verdict on the murder count and that it need not reach a unanimous verdict on the robbery count. The jury indicated that it was unanimous on the murder count and that the verdict on the robbery count was at least 10-2, but the jury was not polled. Defendant raises an evi- dentiary challenge on appeal, and also makes an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without dis- cussion defendant’s evidentiary argument. With respect to his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach a unanimous verdict on the rob- bery count, defendant contends that because of the errone- ous jury instruction, both the murder and robbery 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.