State v. Flores Ramos

A structural error is a “structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds,” and a reversal of the conviction is the result. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US 279, 310, 111 S Ct 1246, 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991). “When a federal constitutional error is not structural, the conviction can be affirmed only if the error ‘was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Fulminante, 499 US at 307-08.

Defendant appealed following five convictions of different crimes. Defendant assigned error to the jury instruction given; it informed the jury that they could return a guilty verdict if only 10 jurors voted guilty out of 12. On four of the five charges, Defendant was found guilty unanimously; the remaining charge he was found guilty with 10 votes. The Defendant argued that this error should be considered structural, therefore all of the convictions should be reversed. The State contended that any error made was harmless, and because four of the convictions were based off of a unanimous jury vote, they should still stand because the Sixth Amendment requirement was still met. A structural error is a “structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds,” and a reversal of the conviction is the result. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US  279, 310, 111 S Ct 1246, 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991). “When a federal constitutional error is not structural, the conviction can be affirmed only if the error ‘was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Fulminante, 499 US at 307-08. The Court found that jury instruction regarding a nonunanimous verdict was not structural error and was also harmless. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.