Defendant was found guilty by unanimous jury verdict on one count of felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, in three assignments of error, defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) admitting a police interview of a witness under the recorded recollection exception to hearsay rules, (2) failing to inform the jury which of two firearms the state elected as the subject of the unlawful possession charge, and (3) providing jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without written discussion the first and second assignments of error.
In the third assignment, 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 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), that nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth Amendment, the Oregon Supreme Court explained that 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 jurys verdict was 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). We therefore reject defendants challenge to the nonunanimous jury instruction.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM