State v. Weltch, 439 P.3d 1047, 297 Or. App. 409 (2019)

May 1, 2019 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · A166193

439 P.3d 1047, 297 Or. App. 409

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Joshua Daniel WELTCH, Defendant-Appellant.

A166193

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted March 26, 2019.
May 1, 2019

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Appealing a judgment of conviction for felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, defendant assigns error to the trial court's (1) failure to supply a concurrence instruction to the jury, (2) failure to instruct the jury that it was required to reach a unanimous jury verdict, and (3) acceptance of a nonunanimous jury verdict. Defendant's first assignment of error is not preserved and the error, if any, is not plain. Defendant's remaining assignments of error are foreclosed by our case law. State v. Bowen , 215 Or. App. 199, 202, 168 P.3d 1208 (2007), adh'd to as modified on recons. , 220 Or. App. 380, 185 P.3d 1129, rev. den. , 345 Or. 415, 197 P.3d 1104 (2008), cert. den. , 558 U.S. 815, 130 S.Ct. 52, 175 L.Ed.2d 21 (2009).¹

Affirmed.

1 We note that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Ramos v. Louisiana , --- U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 1318, --- L.Ed. 2d ---- (2019), to consider (again) the question of whether the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requirement of jury unanimity applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.