State v. Jackson, 313 Or. App. 708

Defendant (Jackson) broke into an unoccupied house on Date Street, changed the locks, posted an adverse-possession notice, and later reentered after the owner regained access.
Indictment charged second-degree burglary (entering a "building" with intent to commit a crime) and first-degree trespass (entering a "dwelling"), among other counts; defendant represented himself at trial.
Trial court instructed the jury that a verdict could be returned with 10 jurors (nonunanimous); the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts; no jury poll was requested.
At sentencing the trial court declined to merge the burglary and trespass convictions despite the State conceding merger; defendant appealed, raising three assignments of error (continuance, merger, and the nonunanimous-instruction issue).
The court: (1) rejected the continuance claim without discussion; (2) declined to review the nonunanimous-instruction error as plain error because no jury poll was taken; and (3) held merger was not required because each statute required proof of an element the other did not.

Issue	State's Argument	Jackson's Argument	Held
Day-of-trial continuance denial	No reversible error	Trial court abused discretion	Rejected (no discussion)
Nonunanimous jury instruction (10-juror verdict)	Instructional error was harmless; review not warranted absent preservation	Instructional error was structural/plain error and requires reversal	Error was plain but appellate court declined to review due to no jury poll (harmlessness undeveloped)
Whether burglary and trespass convictions must merge under ORS 161.067	Initially conceded merger, but court may independently review concession	Trespass is a lesser-included offense of burglary; convictions should merge	Merger not required: burglary requires intent to commit a crime in a "building," trespass requires entry into a specific kind of structure—a "dwelling"; each offense has an element the other does not

Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses)
State v. Ulery, 464 P.3d 1123 (Or. 2020) (Ramos applies in Oregon; nonunanimous convictions must be reversed)
State v. Flores Ramos, 478 P.3d 515 (Or. 2020) (Erroneous nonunanimous instruction is not structural; unanimous poll renders error harmless)
State v. Dilallo, 478 P.3d 509 (Or. 2020) (Unpreserved nonunanimous-instruction error is plain but appellate review may be declined where no jury poll exists)
State v. Blake, 228 P.3d 560 (Or. 2010) (Merger under ORS 161.067 requires that each offense include an element the other does not)