State v. Myers ( 2021 )

160
Submitted August 10, 2020, affirmed March 17, petition for review denied
August 26, 2021 (368 Or 514)
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SEAN GEOFFREY MYERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Jackson County Circuit Court
15CR39050; A168810
483 P3d 688
Lisa C. Greif, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the opening brief for appel-
lant. Sean Geoffrey Myers filed the supplemental brief
pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Susan G. Howe, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 310 Or App 160 (2021) 161
PER CURIAM
Defendant was found guilty by unanimous jury ver-
dict of multiple felonies and a misdemeanor stemming from
a sexual assault of his estranged wife. On appeal, defendant
claims that the trial court erred by denying the motions
for judgment of acquittal for various counts, admitting evi-
dence that should have been suppressed, and providing jury
instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. Defendant
also makes numerous pro se assignments of error related to
admission of evidence from a mobile phone, misconduct by
law enforcement officers and prosecutors, and insufficiency
of the evidence to support a conviction. We reject without
written discussion all of the assignments of error except
that related to the nonunanimous jury instruction.
With respect to the nonunanimous jury instruction,
defendant asserts that instructing the jury that it could
return nonunanimous verdicts constituted a structural
error requiring reversal. After the United States Supreme
Court ruled, in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct
1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), that nonunanimous jury ver-
dicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth Amendment, the
Oregon Supreme Court explained that, although giving the
nonunanimous jury instruction was error, it was not a struc-
tural error that categorically requires reversal in every
case. 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).
Therefore, we reject defendant’s arguments concerning the
nonunanimous jury instruction.
Affirmed.