State v. Camphouse , 316 Or. App. 278 ( 2021 )

278
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed October 26; reconsideration
allowed, former opinion (313 Or App 109, 491 P3d 94) modified and adhered to
as modified December 8, 2021; petition for review denied April 21, 2022
(369 Or 675)
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VICTORIA LOIS CAMPHOUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Linn County Circuit Court
17CR26451; A170081
501 P3d 103
DeAnn L. Novotny, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.
Cite as 316 Or App 278 (2021) 279
PER CURIAM
Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opin-
ion in State v. Camphouse, 313 Or App 109, 491 P3d 94
(2021), asserting that we misunderstood the evidence and
defendant’s arguments regarding one of the victims, D. We
adhere to our disposition of the case but allow reconsider-
ation and modify the text of our prior opinion in the follow-
ing two ways.
First, we replace the two paragraphs regarding
“Mistreatment of D,” id. at 117-18, with the following:
“With respect to the count involving D, defendant argues
that some jurors may have based their verdict on unspec-
ified occurrences described in a neighbor’s testimony,
rather than the occurrence focused on by the state. Even
assuming the trial court’s failure to provide a concurrence
instruction as to D was in error, we conclude that it was
harmless for the same reasons it was harmless as to O.”
Second, in the opinion’s conclusion id. at 118, we replace
“and because the trial court did not err as to the charge
involving D” with “and any error as to D was harmless as
well.” As described in the above modifications, we adhere to
our previous disposition.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.