CO Code § 16-10-108 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 10 - Jury Trials|Part 1 - Composition and Selection of the Jury|§ 16-10-108. Verdict

 The verdict of the jury shall be unanimous. The jury shall return its verdict in open court, but a sealed verdict may be received as provided by rule of the supreme court of Colorado.   History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 238, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-10-108 .    ANNOTATION   Although there is a statutory right to a unanimous verdict in criminal cases in Colorado, the state constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict. Nevertheless, there are some cases in which the jury may return a general verdict of guilty when instructed on alternative theories of principal and complicitor liability and in which the state constitution has provided a criminal defendant the right to a unanimous jury verdict. People v. Hall, 60 P.3d 728 (Colo. App. 2002).   The use of a sealed verdict in prosecution for aggravated robbery was not improper. People v. Herrera, 182 Colo. 302 , 512 P.2d 1160 (1973).   Retrial of defendant on kidnapping charge, after the first trial was declared a mistrial without objection from either party, did not violate statute requiring the verdict of the jury to be unanimous or the defendant's right to due process because the federal constitution does not guarantee a defendant a unanimous verdict of either guilty or not guilty. People v. Barton, 58 P.3d 1075 (Colo. App. 2002).   Unanimity is required only with respect to ultimate issue of defendant's guilt or innocence of the crime charged and not with respect to alternative means by which the crime was committed. People v. Taggart, 621 P.2d 1375 (Colo. 1981); People v. Vigil, 678 P.2d 554 (Colo. App. 1983); People v. Marquez, 692 P.2d 1089 (Colo. 1984); People v. Davis, 2017 COA 40 M, 415 P.3d 838.   If the court has not required the prosecution to elect the transaction on which it relies for conviction, to ensure jury unanimity, the jury must be instructed that to convict the defendant it must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or committed all the acts within the period charged. People v. Rivera, 56 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2002); People v. Gookins, 111 P.3d 525 (Colo. App. 2004).   Failure of trial court to give unanimity instruction constitutes plain error if that failure results in confusion whether jurors' conviction was based upon a true unanimity or whether different incidents formed the basis for the conclusion of individual jurors. In cases involving multiple acts, unanimity instruction assures that the jury does not base its conviction upon some jurors finding that one act was committed while others rely on a different act. People v. Devine, 74 P.3d 440 (Colo. App. 2003).   When evidence of several acts is presented at trial, any one of which could form the basis of the offense, the court must either: (1) Require the prosecution to elect the act that it's relying upon for the conviction, or (2) instruct the jury that they must unanimously agree on a specific act defendant committed that serves as the basis for the conviction. Quintano v. People, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005); People v. Childress, 2012 COA 116 , 409 P.3d 365, rev'd on other grounds, 2015 CO 65M, 363 P.3d 155.   The prosecution presented several acts that could have constituted child abuse, so an election or a modified unanimity instruction was required. People v. Childress, 2012 COA 116 , 409 P.3d 365, rev'd on other grounds, 2015 CO 65M, 363 P.3d 155.   The defendant did not waive her unanimity argument but forfeited it. It was not plain error by the trial court for not requiring an election or giving a modified unanimity instruction. People v. Wester-Gravelle, 2020 CO 64, 465 P.3d 570.   Consideration of lesser charge permitted without acquittal of greater charge. Acquittal of a greater charge by a unanimous vote of the jury is not necessary before the jury can consider a lesser included offense. People v. McGregor, 635 P.2d 912 (Colo. App. 1981).   The jury instruction for felony menacing which did not specify a particular victim, coupled with the comments of the prosecutor, invited the jury to convict without regard to the identity of the victim, making it impossible to determine whether the jury unanimously convicted defendant on the basis of menacing the same victim. People v. Simmons, 973 P.2d 627 (Colo. App. 1998).   The court did not commit plain error when it failed to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying felony for the first degree burglary conviction. Because the jury unanimously found defendant guilty of attempted aggravated robbery, the finding satisfied the intent requirement of first degree burglary as well as any requirement that the jury agree unanimously to the underlying offense. Therefore, the court's failure to give a unanimity instruction was not plain error because there was no reasonable possibility that any error contributed to defendant's conviction. People v. Linares-Guzman, 195 P.3d 1130 (Colo. App. 2008).   Jurors must unanimously agree on how the prosecution disproved affirmative defense of self-defense. The trial court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecution to prove felony menacing without instructing the jury that it must unanimously agree on which exception to self-defense it relied. People v. Mosely, 2019 COA 143 , __ P.3d __.   Jurors do not need to unanimously agree on a particular exception to self-defense. People v. Roberts-Bicking, 2021 COA 12 , __ P.3d __.   It was not plain error for the unanimity instruction to refer only to sexual assault when the jury was also instructed on the lesser included offense of unlawful sexual contact. The better practice would be to have the instruction refer to both, but based on the rest of the instructions and the closing arguments, the jury could infer that unanimity applied to both offenses. People v. Abdulla, 2020 COA 109 M, __ P.3d __.   Applied in People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1981).