From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chatelain

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Feb 10, 2021
309 Or. App. 320 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

A168586 (Control), A168587, A168588

02-10-2021

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven Paul CHATELAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Mark Kimbrell, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM In one of these consolidated cases, defendant was convicted by jury on two counts of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence. In that case, the jury was instructed that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, but the jury was not polled. In the other consolidated cases, defendant's probation was revoked based on his new criminal activity. On appeal, defendant raises several assignments of error concerning trial matters in the assault case, including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion all of defendant's arguments concerning trial except his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. Defendant contends that because of the erroneous jury instruction, all verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 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 P.3d 515 (2020) and State v. Dilallo , 367 Or. 340, 478 P.3d 509 (2020).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Chatelain

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Feb 10, 2021
309 Or. App. 320 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

State v. Chatelain

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STEVEN PAUL CHATELAIN…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Feb 10, 2021

Citations

309 Or. App. 320 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)
481 P.3d 407