A jury unanimously found defendant guilty of first-degree possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.022. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (1) denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained from an unlawful seizure and (2) providing jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. We reject the first contention without written discussion.
As for the second, defendant argues that instructing the jury that it could return a nonunanimous verdict constituted a structural error requiring reversal. Subsequent to the United States Supreme Courts ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that the delivery of a nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal. State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 319, 478 P.3d 515 (2020). Additionally, when, as here, the jurys verdict is unanimous despite the nonunanimous instruction, such erroneous instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or. 335, 339, 478 P.3d 507 (2020). Therefore, we reject defendants second assignment of error.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM