STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANTHONY MORGAN MAILMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Union County Circuit Court M21794; A162173
Oregon Court of Appeals
February 3, 2021
On appellant‘s petition for reconsideration filed March 26, 2020; reconsideration allowed, former opinion (303 Or App 101, 463 P3d 20) modified and adhered to as modified February 3, 2021
309 Or App 158 (2021) | 480 P3d 339
Russell B. West, Judge.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
PER CURIAM
Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Mailman, 303 Or App 101, 463 P3d 20 (2020). In our original opinion, we neglected to rule on the assignments of error raised in defendant‘s supplemental brief, wherein defendant challenged the trial court‘s instruction that the jury could reach a nonunanimous verdict. Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, asking us to address his supplemental assignments of error. We held our decision pending resolution of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), as well as cases subsequently taken under advisement by the Oregon Supreme Court that presented Ramos issues.
Those cases have now issued, and one of them, State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 478 P3d 509 (2020), is controlling. At trial, defendant did not object to the instruction, nor was the jury polled. Accordingly, we reject defendant‘s unpreserved argument in light of Dilallo.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.