State v. Snyder

484 P.3d 387, 310 Or. App. 363

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: March 31, 2021
• Docket: A169314
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted April 2, 2020, affirmed March 31, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DENICE MARIE SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR66061; A169314 484 P3d 387

Karin Johana Immergut, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 364 State v. Snyder

PER CURIAM A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying the motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) pro- viding jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. We reject the first contention without written discussion. As for the second, defendant asserts that instruct- ing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts con- stituted a structural error requiring reversal. 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 the deliv- ery of a 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 an erroneous instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or 335, 339, 478 P3d 507 (2020). Therefore, we reject defendant’s second assignment of error. Affirmed.