130 (2000). The Court of Appeals also held that Abrams had not preserved its objection to the trial court’s failure to give Abrams’s requested jury instruction containing the complete text of section 222A of the Restatement. Id. at 357. On review, Abrams first argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing for abuse of discretion the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial. Abrams contends that the abuse of discretion standard is appropriate only when an ex parte communication is between a party and a juror, or between a witness and a juror. According to Abrams, a communication between a lawyer and a juror is analogous to a communication between a judge and a juror, and should be considered error as a matter of law. Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or 591, 594, 556 P2d 122 (1976) (<HOLDING>). However, Abrams asked the Court of Appeals to
holding that judges ex parte communication telling a jury it needed to reach a verdict was reversible error without any discussion of harmlessness holding new trial required after judges ex parte communication with jury in response to jury question during deliberations because there was no way of reaching a conclusion about what transpired other than by adopting the judges recollection holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations holding that judges comments to jury during equal pay act trial were harmless error recognizing the hazards of ex parte communication with a deliberating jury