Opinion ID: 2518340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: was the jury properly instructed with regard to the predicate crimes for the burglary charges?

Text: With regard to the second burglary, the jury was instructed: To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: 1. That Mr. Griffin knowingly entered or remained in a building which is a dwelling; 2. That Mr. Griffin did so without authority; 3. That Mr. Griffin did so with the intent to commit a theft, and/or aggravated arson, a felony, and/or criminal damage to property, a felony, therein; and 4. That this act occurred on or about the 29th day of July, 2001 in Lyon County, Kansas. There was no objection to the instruction at trial. On appeal, Griffin contends that the jury should have been required to agree on one of the three intents  theft, aggravated arson, or criminal damage to property. He cites State v. Hill, 271 Kan. 929, 939, 26 P.3d 1267 (2001), for the proposition that, when multiple acts could form the basis of a criminal count, jury unanimity is required. The State correctly states that this is an alternative means question rather than one of multiple acts. The distinction is well stated in the following excerpt from State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994): In an alternative means case, where a single offense may be committed in more than one way, there must be jury unanimity as to guilt for the single crime charged. Unanimity is not required, however, as to the means by which the crime was committed so long as substantial evidence supports each alternative means. [Citations omitted.] In reviewing an alternative means case, the court must determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found each means of committing the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] In multiple acts cases, on the other hand, several acts are alleged and any one of them could constitute the crime charged. In these cases, the jury must be unanimous as to which act or incident constitutes the crime. To ensure jury unanimity in multiple acts cases, we require that either the State elect the particular criminal act upon which it will rely for conviction, or that the trial court instruct the jury that all of them must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] 255 Kan. at 289-90 (quoting State v. Kitchen, 110 Wash. 2d 403, 410, 756 P.2d 105 [1988]). Jury unanimity was not required. Griffin does not contend that there was not substantial evidence to support each of the alternative means.