From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Belgarde

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Mar 17, 2021
310 Or. App. 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

A169632

03-17-2021

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gary Lynn BELGARDE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

PER CURIAM Defendant was found guilty by unanimous jury verdict on one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, in two assignments of error, defendant claims that the trial court (1) erred by denying a motion for judgment of acquittal, and (2) plainly erred by providing jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without written discussion the first assignment of error.

In the second assignment, defendant asserts that instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts constituted a structural error requiring reversal. Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that a nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal in every case. State v. Flores Ramos , 367 Or. 292, 319, 478 P.3d 515 (2020). Additionally, when, as here, the jury's verdicts were unanimous despite the nonunanimous instruction, such erroneous instruction was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Ciraulo , 367 Or. 350, 354, 478 P.3d 502 (2020) ; see also State v. Chorney-Phillips , 367 Or. 355, 359, 478 P.3d 504 (2020) (declining to exercise discretion to review as plain error an unpreserved nonunanimous instruction when the verdict was unanimous). Therefore, we reject defendant's second assignment of error.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Belgarde

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Mar 17, 2021
310 Or. App. 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

State v. Belgarde

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARY LYNN BELGARDE, JR.…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Mar 17, 2021

Citations

310 Or. App. 166 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
483 P.3d 688