State v. Hatchell

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: A167972 (Control), A167973, A167974
• Citation: 309 Or.App. 348,481 P.3d 413 (Mem)
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Justin Douglas HATCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

309 Or.App. 348

481 P.3d 413 (Mem)

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Justin Douglas HATCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

A167972 (Control), A167973, A167974

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted June 25, 2020.

February 10, 2021

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated criminal case, defendant was convicted of various crimes in Case Nos. 17CR56804, 17CR27612, and 17CR56799, which were joined for trial. The jury was instructed that its verdicts need not be unanimous, which was error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). The jury found defendant guilty of all counts, and the verdicts were unanimous as to all counts.

On appeal, defendant raises seven assignments of error. We reject assignments of error one through five without written discussion. In assignments of error six and seven, defendant argues that the trial court erred in giving the nonunanimous jury instruction, that the error was structural error, and that all of his convictions therefore should be reversed. Defendant also contends that, even if the error was not structural, it was plain error that we should exercise our discretion to correct. We reject those arguments for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos , 367 Or. 292, 478 P.3d 515 (2020), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was not structural error and was harmless with respect to unanimous verdicts.

Affirmed.