SUMMARY 

May 17, 2018 

2018COA68

No. 16CA0835, People v. Wagner — Constitutional Law — Fifth 

Amendment — Double Jeopardy; Crimes — Stalking 

A division of the court of appeals considers whether the 

Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado 

Constitutions require that a defendant’s three stalking convictions 

merge. Considering the plain language of section 18-3-602(1)(a), 

(b), and (c), C.R.S. 2017, the division concludes that the stalking 

statute sets forth alternative ways of committing the same offense. 

Because the defendant was convicted of three counts of stalking 

(one under each subsection of section 18-3-602(1)) based on one 

factually inseparable course of conduct, the division concludes that 

the convictions were multiplicitous. Thus, the division vacates two 

of the defendant’s stalking convictions and remands for correction 

of the mittimus. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. 

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions 

constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by 

the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be 

cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. 

Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion 

should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. 
The division also considers and rejects the defendant’s 

contentions that insufficient evidence supported his convictions and 

that the trial court erred in rejecting a defense-tendered unanimity 

jury instruction. 
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2018COA68

Court of Appeals No. 16CA0835 

Arapahoe County District Court No. 14CR2454 

Honorable Michelle A. Amico, Judge 

The People of the State of Colorado, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

Ryan Austin Wagner, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, 

AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 

Division I 

Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN 

Harris and Rothenberg*, JJ., concur 

Announced May 17, 2018 

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Kevin E. McReynolds, Assistant 

Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Joseph Paul Hough, 

Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant 

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. 

VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2017. 
1 

¶ 1 Defendant, Ryan Austin Wagner, appeals his judgment of 

conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of three 

counts of stalking. We remand for the trial court to merge his 

stalking convictions and correct the mittimus accordingly, but 

affirm in all other respects. 

I. Background 

¶ 2 In May 2014, Wagner and the victim, his wife, separated. The 

victim moved in with another man she had been dating. For the 

next several months, Wagner repeatedly texted, called, and followed 

the victim and her boyfriend. 

¶ 3 Wagner and the victim were divorced in September 2014. 

Shortly after the divorce was finalized, the victim disclosed Wagner’s 

behavior to her supervisor after he made several calls to her 

workplace. After the victim reported his behavior, Wagner was 

arrested and charged with three counts of stalking — one count 

under each of subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 18-3-602(1), 

C.R.S. 2017. A jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts.1 

 

1 Wagner was also charged with violation of a mandatory protection 

order imposed after his arrest on the stalking charges. He pleaded 
2 

¶ 4 Wagner was sentenced to ninety days in jail on each count 

with all jail terms to run consecutively, and six years of probation 

on each count with all probation terms to run concurrently. 

¶ 5 On appeal, Wagner argues that the trial court erred by (1) 

entering convictions unsupported by sufficient evidence and (2) 

rejecting a defense-tendered unanimity instruction or, in the 

alternative, failing to require the prosecution to elect which acts 

constituted credible threats. In their answer brief, the People 

conceded that two of Wagner’s convictions — those charged under 

the credible threat subsections (a) and (b) — should have merged at 

sentencing. 

¶ 6 After considering the People’s concession, we requested 

supplemental briefing from Wagner and the People addressing 

whether all three of the stalking convictions should have merged at 

sentencing. Wagner asserted that, assuming his convictions were 

not vacated altogether, merger was appropriate. The People argued 

that the credible threat convictions should not merge with the 

serious emotional distress conviction under section 18-3-602(1)(c). 

 

guilty to this charge at the close of his jury trial. Wagner does not 

challenge this conviction on appeal. 
3 

¶ 7 We conclude that Wagner’s stalking convictions should have 

merged and therefore remand so that the trial court can vacate two 

of the counts. However, we reject Wagner’s other contentions of 

error and therefore affirm in all other respects. 

II. Multiplicity 

¶ 8 Although Wagner did not raise the issue before the trial court 

or on appeal, the People conceded in their answer brief that two of 

his stalking convictions should have merged at sentencing and we 

agree. We further conclude that Wagner’s three stalking 

convictions should have merged and therefore remand for the trial 

court to vacate two of the convictions. 

A. Standard of Review 

¶ 9 We review de novo whether merger applies to criminal 

offenses. People v. Zweygardt, 2012 COA 119, ¶ 40, 298 P.3d 1018. 

An unpreserved double jeopardy claim is reviewable for plain error. 

Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶¶ 45-46, 390 P.3d 816, 823. 

Plain errors are errors that are “obvious and substantial,” Hagos v. 

People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14, 288 P.3d 116, 120, and “cast serious 

doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction,” id. (quoting 

People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo. 2005)). 
4 

B. Applicable Law 

1. Stalking Statute 

¶ 10 A person commits stalking if he or she knowingly 

(a) Makes a credible threat to another person 

and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly 

follows, approaches, contacts, or places under 

surveillance that person . . . ; or 

(b) Makes a credible threat to another person 

and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly 

makes any form of communication with that 

person . . . ; or 

(c) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, 

places under surveillance, or makes any form 

of communication with another person, a 

member of that person’s immediate family, or 

someone with whom that person has or has 

had a continuing relationship in a manner that 

would cause a reasonable person to suffer 

serious emotional distress and does cause that 

person, a member of that person’s immediate 

family, or someone with whom that person has 

or has had a continuing relationship to suffer 

serious emotional distress. 

§ 18-3-602(1)(a)-(c). 

2. Merger 

¶ 11 Unless a statute expressly authorizes multiple punishments 

for the same criminal offense, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the 

United States and Colorado Constitutions prohibit “the imposition 
5 

of multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct.” Woellhaf 

v. People, 105 P.3d 209, 214 (Colo. 2005); see U.S. Const. amends. 

V, XIV; Colo. Const. art. II, § 18. Multiplicitous charging creates a 

risk that a defendant “would be punished more than once for the 

same offense.” Quintano v. People, 105 P.3d 585, 589 (Colo. 2005). 

¶ 12 When a statute provides alternative ways of committing a 

single criminal offense, multiplicity concerns may materialize. 

Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 214. “Such an issue may arise if imprecise 

statutory language leads a prosecutor to charge multiple counts of 

the same offense because a defendant has committed the crime 

using more than one of the prohibited alternative methods.” Id. at 

215. In these cases, courts must determine “the legislatively 

prescribed unit of prosecution.” Id. at 211. 

¶ 13 “After determining the unit of prosecution designated by the 

General Assembly, double jeopardy analysis requires us to consider 

whether the defendant’s conduct constitutes factually distinct 

offenses, that is, whether the conduct satisfies more than one 

defined unit of prosecution.” Id. at 218-19. In determining whether 

offenses are factually distinct, we consider factors including the 

time and location of the events, the defendant’s intent, and whether 
6 

the People presented the acts as legally separable. See Quintano, 

105 P.3d at 591-92. However, no one factor is dispositive and the 

inquiry ultimately focuses on “all the evidence introduced at trial to 

determine whether the evidence on which the jury relied for 

conviction was sufficient to support distinct and separate offenses.” 

Id. at 592. 

¶ 14 In the event that a defendant is convicted of multiplicitous 

counts, the proper remedy is to merge the multiplicitous 

convictions. See People v. Rhea, 2014 COA 60, ¶¶ 16-17, 349 P.3d 

280, 287-88 (“Merger has the same effect as vacating one of the 

multiplicitous sentences.”). 

C. Analysis 

¶ 15 Wagner was charged with two counts of stalking under the 

“credible threat” subsections of the stalking statute, section 18-3-

602(1)(a) and (b), and one count of stalking under the “serious 

emotional distress” subsection of the stalking statute, section 18-3-

602(1)(c). The complaint and information lists the same period for 

all three alleged offenses, May 15, 2014, through October 2, 2014. 

The People conceded in their answer brief that the credible threat 

convictions should have merged at sentencing because “the 
7 

prosecution did not separate the charges based on shorter time 

frames or specific incidents.” Although we are not bound by the 

People’s concession, see People v. Knott, 83 P.3d 1147, 1148 (Colo. 

App. 2003), we agree. 

¶ 16 As noted, in their supplemental brief the People contend that 

the credible threat convictions should not merge with the serious 

emotional distress conviction. In support of that position, the 

People rely on People v. Carey, 198 P.3d 1223 (Colo. App. 2008), 

and People v. Herron, 251 P.3d 1190 (Colo. App. 2010). We 

consider the People’s reliance on those cases misplaced. 

¶ 17 In contrast to the People’s contention, the division in Carey

did not uphold multiple convictions under the credible threat and 

serious emotional distress subsections of the stalking statute; 

instead, as a careful reading of the division’s opinion reveals, the 

defendant there was convicted of a single count of stalking, though 

he was apparently charged under both subsections of the statute. 

See 198 P.3d at 1227. Thus, the People’s reliance on Carey is 

unavailing. 

¶ 18 In Herron, the division concluded that two stalking 

convictions, one under the credible threat subsection and one 
8 

under the serious emotional distress subsection, should merge. 

251 P.3d at 1192. The division determined, based on the plain 

language of section 18-3-602(1), that “the legislatively defined unit 

of prosecution for the crime of stalking is a continuous course of 

conduct by which one repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or 

places another under surveillance.” Id. at 1193. Further, the 

division concluded that the stalking statute “does not contain any 

specific authorization for multiple punishments for each act of 

stalking,” but instead “defines alternative means of committing a 

single offense.” Id.; see also People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462, 466 

(Colo. 2005) (when the legislature joins “a number of acts . . . as a 

disjunctive series,” rather than describing them in different 

provisions under different titles, it defines alternative means of 

committing a single offense); People v. Friend, 2014 COA 123M, 

¶ 53, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (cert. granted in part Feb. 8, 2016). Thus, the 

Herron division merged the defendant’s two stalking convictions 

under former section 18-9-111(4)(b)(I) (now codified at section 18-3-

602(1)(a)) and former section 18-9-111(4)(b)(III) (now codified at 

section 18-3-602(1)(c)). 251 P.3d at 1192. 
9 

¶ 19 Still, in their supplemental brief, the People maintain that 

there is no multiplicity problem presented by Wagner’s credible 

threat and serious emotional distress stalking convictions because, 

“unlike in Herron, Wagner committed enough factually distinct 

incidents to permit convictions on each theory.” We disagree. 

¶ 20 The People rely on the analysis in Herron that three instances 

of following the victim could not support the defendant’s two 

stalking convictions because each stalking conviction must be 

based on repeated conduct. See id. at 1194. The People contend 

that Wagner’s conduct, unlike the defendant’s in Herron, could be 

separated into two distinct stalking convictions because he 

contacted the victim more than four times. However, because the 

stalking statute proscribes an entire course of conduct, “a second or 

successive offense is not necessarily committed by acts that are 

factually distinct from each other but only by acts that are factually 

distinct from the entire course of conduct punished by the first 

conviction.” Abiodun, 111 P.3d at 470. Contrary to the People’s 

argument, we determine that Wagner’s conduct did not support 

factually separate stalking transactions. 
10 

¶ 21 While Wagner’s course of conduct lasted for several months, 

the extended timeframe alone does not render his numerous 

contacts with the victim factually distinct. See Herron, 251 P.3d at 

1194 (finding stalking transactions were not factually distinct 

despite passage of three months between them). Further, Wagner’s 

contacts with the victim were related to a common theme — 

namely, his desire to reconcile and resume their relationship. Most 

significantly, the prosecution did not treat Wagner’s acts as legally 

separable at trial. Instead, the prosecution based all three charges 

on the same evidence and designated the same approximately 

five-month period for each charge. During closing argument, the 

prosecutor urged the jury to “think about all of the threats and the 

conduct in connection with those threats in this case” and to 

consider Wagner’s actions “taken in conjunction with everything.” 

Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence supports only one 

conviction for stalking, and, therefore, two of his stalking 

convictions must be vacated. 

¶ 22 We determine only that, in the circumstances here, the People 

did not prove factually distinct instances of conduct sufficient to 

support multiple stalking convictions. Nevertheless, we do not 
11 

conclude or even suggest that a defendant can never be convicted of 

multiple stalking convictions. Cf. Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 218 (“[W]e 

do not suggest that the statute defines sexual assault on a child 

such that the prosecution may never charge separate offenses 

arising from a single course of conduct or criminal episode.”). “The 

prosecution may pursue multiple convictions if the underlying 

evidence supports factually distinct offenses.” Id. 

¶ 23 In sum, we conclude that Wagner was charged with, and 

convicted of, multiplicitous counts. Further, we conclude that the 

error was plain. Herron was decided when Wagner was sentenced, 

as were Woellhaf and Quintano. See Friend, ¶ 74, ___ P.3d at ___. 

The protections against double jeopardy affect a substantial 

constitutional right. Id. at ¶ 75, ___ P.3d at ___. It was plainly 

erroneous for the trial court to enter three stalking convictions. 

¶ 24 Thus, we remand for the trial court to vacate two of the 

stalking counts and to correct the mittimus accordingly. 

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

¶ 25 Wagner contends that insufficient evidence supported all three 

of his convictions. We disagree. Because we have concluded that 

all of Wagner’s convictions should have merged, we need only 
12 

address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction 

under any one of the subsections of section 18-3-602(1). However, 

we will address his argument as to all three convictions. 

A. Additional Facts 

¶ 26 The victim testified that Wagner began texting, calling, and 

following her after the two separated, but that the contact increased 

over the next few months until their divorce was finalized. She 

testified that Wagner repeatedly parked outside her home, once 

confronted her in the parking lot at her workplace, and followed her 

and her boyfriend to a park. Additionally, Wagner told the victim 

on a few occasions that if he could not have her then no one could 

and implied “that [she] had to come back to him or else.” During 

one phone conversation, the victim believed she heard Wagner 

“pull[] the slide back on a gun . . . and [she] was really concerned 

that he was either going to shoot himself or come over and kill [her 

or her boyfriend].” Wagner also told the victim that he knew where 

she lived, as well as where her and her boyfriend’s families resided. 

¶ 27 As a result of Wagner’s behavior, the victim testified that she 

did not feel safe or secure, was “always worried” that Wagner “was 

either going to hurt himself, [her], or [her boyfriend],” started to 
13 

carry a concealed firearm, altered her route to work and her 

schedule, and lost sleep because she was “pretty emotional.” In 

addition, the victim’s boyfriend testified that he purchased a 

security system for his home and also started to carry a concealed 

gun. 

¶ 28 The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal on all charges. 

In a thorough bench ruling, the trial court denied that motion. 

B. Standard of Review 

¶ 29 In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, 

we review the record de novo. Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800, 

807 (Colo. 2005). “When determining a challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence, an appellate court must consider whether the 

evidence, viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, is sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable 

person that the defendant is guilty of the charged crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Carey, 198 P.3d at 1232. 

C. Analysis 

¶ 30 Wagner contends that there was insufficient evidence to 

support his stalking convictions. His argument is twofold. First, he 

contends that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable 
14 

doubt that his conduct would have caused a reasonable person to 

suffer serious emotional distress or that the victim actually suffered 

serious emotional distress. Second, he asserts that his actions did 

not constitute “credible threats” because they would not have 

caused “a reasonable person to be in fear for the person’s safety or 

the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom 

the person has or has had a continuing relationship.” § 18-3-

602(2)(b), C.R.S. 2017. We disagree with both contentions. 

¶ 31 Taken in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude 

the evidence was sufficient to show both that Wagner’s conduct 

would have caused a reasonable person serious emotional distress 

and that it caused the victim serious emotional distress. The victim 

testified that, as a result of Wagner’s surveillance and frequent 

communications, she felt unsafe, lost sleep, changed her daily 

routine to evade Wagner, and started to carry a concealed weapon. 

This evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find the objective 

and subjective serious emotional distress elements had been 

established. See Carey, 198 P.3d at 1233 (victim’s testimony “that 

she was ‘very fearful’ and ‘very distressed’ because she realized that 

defendant could easily act on his threats” and that she “increased 
15 

her level of awareness of her surroundings” was sufficient evidence 

of serious emotional distress); People v. Cross, 114 P.3d 1, 6 (Colo. 

App. 2004) (sufficient evidence of serious emotional distress when 

victim testified that the defendant’s behavior caused her to change 

her work schedule, feel nervous, and have trouble sleeping), rev’d in 

part on other grounds, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006); People v. Sullivan, 

53 P.3d 1181, 1185 (Colo. App. 2002) (sufficient evidence of serious 

emotional distress when victim testified that she changed her 

routines, was afraid, felt she was constantly being watched, and 

had trouble sleeping). 

¶ 32 Similarly, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that 

Wagner made credible threats. On several occasions, he told the 

victim something like, “If I can’t have you, then no one can.” The 

victim testified that, during one phone call, she heard Wagner pull 

the slide of a gun back. Wagner also told the victim that he knew 

where her family lived. Again, taking the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the People, we conclude that this evidence was 

sufficient for the jury to conclude that Wagner had made credible 

threats. See People v. Chase, 2013 COA 27, ¶¶ 53-54, ___ P.3d ___, 

___ (concluding that several emails containing “implicit and explicit 
16 

threats” was sufficient evidence of credible threats when victim 

considered the emails serious and bought a gun as a result); People 

v. Suazo, 87 P.3d 124, 126 (Colo. App. 2003) (noting sufficient 

evidence of credible threat where the “defendant told the victim that 

he was going to kill her if she did not see him”). 

IV. Unanimity Instruction and Prosecutorial Election 

¶ 33 Wagner contends that the trial court erred in rejecting a 

defense-tendered unanimity jury instruction or, in the alternative, 

failing to require the prosecution to elect between the alleged 

credible threats. We perceive no error. 

¶ 34 In light of our conclusion that all Wagner’s stalking 

convictions should merge, it may seem that we do not need to 

consider this argument. In Herron, the division apparently declined 

to address a similar contention in light of its conclusion that the 

defendant’s stalking convictions should merge. See Herron, 251 

P.3d at 1192-93 (“Because we agree with [the defendant’s] double 

jeopardy argument, we do not address his alternative contention 

that the court erred in failing to require the prosecution to specify 

what conduct comprised emotional distress stalking and credible 
17 

threat stalking or to give the jury a unanimity instruction 

concerning the stalking counts.”). 

¶ 35 However, we conclude that because of the large number of 

stalking incidents alleged under both the credible threat and 

serious emotional distress subsections of the stalking statute, we 

must address this contention regardless of our conclusion that 

Wagner’s convictions should merge. The prosecution presented 

evidence of numerous occasions on which Wagner contacted and 

followed the victim, any number of which could have supported a 

stalking conviction. Thus, we must still address Wagner’s 

argument that the jury should have been required to unanimously 

agree as to which acts in fact occurred. 

A. Additional Facts 

¶ 36 During a conference on the jury instructions, the defense 

tendered an instruction that read, “In order to convict the defendant 

of the crime of stalking as set forth in [the elemental instructions], 

you must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed 

the same act or acts, or that the defendant committed all of the acts 

described.” In the alternative, the defense requested that the 

prosecution elect which acts constituted credible threats with 
18 

regard to counts two and three because there were “a number of 

different statements, any one of which could” constitute a credible 

threat. 

¶ 37 The trial court denied the defense’s request, relying primarily 

on Carey, 198 P.3d 1223, and stating, “When a defendant is 

charged with crimes occurring in a single transaction, the 

[p]rosecution does not have to elect among the acts that constitute 

the crime, and the unanimity instruction need not be given.” 

B. Standard of Review 

¶ 38 We review de novo whether the trial court was required to give 

a unanimity instruction. People v. Torres, 224 P.3d 268, 278 (Colo. 

App. 2009). We also review de novo whether “the prosecution’s 

failure to elect the particular act on which it relies for conviction” 

denied a defendant due process of law. Quintano, 105 P.3d at 592. 

C. Applicable Law 

¶ 39 An accused has the right to a jury trial, U.S. Const. amends. 

VI, XIV; Colo. Const. art. II, §§ 16, 25, and a unanimous jury 

verdict, § 16-10-108, C.R.S. 2017. “The trial court is responsible 

for ensuring that the jury is properly instructed on the law and that 

a conviction on any count is the result of a unanimous verdict.” 
19 

People v. Rivera, 56 P.3d 1155, 1160-61 (Colo. App. 2002). 

Therefore, as a general rule, 

[w]hen evidence of many acts is presented, any 

one of which could constitute the offense 

charged, the trial court must take one of two 

actions to ensure jury unanimity: (1) require 

the prosecution to elect the transaction on 

which it relies for the conviction, or (2) if there 

is not evidence to differentiate between the 

acts and there is a reasonable likelihood that 

jurors may disagree on the act the defendant 

committed, instruct the jury that to convict it 

must agree unanimously that the defendant 

committed the same act or that the defendant 

committed all of the acts included within the 

period charged. 

People v. Greer, 262 P.3d 920, 925 (Colo. App. 2011), as modified on 

denial of reh’g (Apr. 21, 2011). 

¶ 40 However, that general rule is inapposite when there is no 

“reasonable likelihood that jurors may disagree on the act the 

defendant committed.” Rivera, 56 P.3d at 1160; see also Greer, 262 

P.3d at 925. Thus, a trial court errs in rejecting a request for 

prosecutorial election or in denying a unanimity instruction only 

“[i]f the record demonstrates that ‘[s]ome of the jurors may have 

decided to convict on one act, while others may have decided to 

convict on another’ such that ‘it is impossible to be reasonably 
20 

certain of the reliability of the judgment of conviction.’” People v. 

Gookins, 111 P.3d 525, 528 (Colo. App. 2004) (quoting Woertman v. 

People, 804 P.2d 188, 192 (Colo. 1991)). 

D. Analysis 

¶ 41 Wagner contends that the trial court erred by rejecting the 

unanimity instruction or by failing to require the People to elect 

which acts were credible threats in support of counts two and three. 

We disagree. 

¶ 42 During trial, the defense’s theory of the case was that Wagner 

had committed harassment rather than stalking. In fact, the 

defense began its closing argument by stating that “no one was 

going to deny how many text messages [there were] and how much 

contact there was” between Wagner and the victim. As Wagner 

acknowledges in his reply brief, it was “undisputed” that he made 

repeated contact with the victim. The defense did not argue that 

Wagner did not commit any of the acts about which the victim or 

the other witnesses testified. 

¶ 43 We conclude that this is a case in which the evidence 

“described repeated acts with respect to a single victim-witness, 

such that the jury would be likely to agree either that all of the acts 
21 

occurred or that none occurred.” Rivera, 56 P.3d at 1160. 

Accordingly, there is no “reasonable likelihood that the jury could 

have disagreed concerning the act or acts [Wagner] committed” and 

the prosecution therefore was not required to elect on which acts it 

was relying to prove that Wagner had made a credible threat. See 

id. Nor was the trial court required to give a unanimity 

instruction.2 See Carey, 198 P.3d at 1236; see also Melina v. 

People, 161 P.3d 635, 639-40 (Colo. 2007). Thus, the trial court did 

not err in denying the defense’s request for prosecutorial election 

or, in the alternative, for a unanimity instruction. 

V. Conclusion 

¶ 44 Accordingly, we vacate two of the counts and remand for the 

trial court to merge the convictions under section 18-3-602(1)(a), 

(b), and (c), and to correct the mittimus. In all other respects, the 

judgment is affirmed. 

JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE ROTHENBERG concur. 

 

2 Although we conclude that the trial court was not required to give 

the jury a unanimity instruction under the circumstances here, a 

unanimity instruction may be appropriate in cases, such as 

stalking, in which the charged crime is composed of multiple 

distinct acts.