Opinion ID: 874801
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The jury instructions on the conspiracy counts were proper.

Text: Shackelford asserts that the jury instructions on the conspiracy counts are ambiguous and thus permitted the jury to return a non-unanimous verdict on proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt, violating his right to due process. The State contends that, because Shackelford was found guilty of the underlying offenses of first-degree murder and first-degree arson, which were both alleged as overt acts, the jury necessarily unanimously found at least one overt act sufficient to establish the conspiracy counts. In the alternative, the State argues that a unanimity instruction was not necessary. In all felony cases, the jury's verdict must be unanimous; however, a specific unanimity instruction is not always necessary. State v. Johnson, 145 Idaho 970, 977, 188 P.3d 912, 919 (2008); Idaho Const. art. I, § 7. In Johnson, the appellant relied on a line of cases from the Idaho Court of Appeals that hold that [a] specific unanimity instruction is required ... when it appears ... that a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts. Id. (quoting State v. Gain, 140 Idaho 170, 172, 90 P.3d 920, 922 (Ct.App.2004)). The Court found those cases to not be applicable, however, because in Johnson there was not evidence of more criminal acts than have been charged. Johnson, 145 Idaho at 977, 188 P.3d at 919 (quoting State v. Montoya, 140 Idaho 160, 167, 90 P.3d 910, 917 (Ct.App.2004)). Johnson also cited to Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991), a United States Supreme Court opinion that found that a specific unanimity instruction was not necessary. The district court in Schad instructed the jury that [f]irst degree murder is murder which is the result of premeditation.... Murder which is committed in the attempt to commit robbery is also first degree murder. Id. at 629, 111 S.Ct. at 2495, 115 L.Ed.2d at 563. The defendant in Schad challenged his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that the jury was not instructed to unanimously agree on the alternative theories of premeditated and felony murder. Id. at 630, 111 S.Ct. at 2496, 115 L.Ed.2d at 564. The Supreme Court plurality found the following: Petitioner's jury was unanimous in deciding that the State had proved what, under state law, it had to prove: that petitioner murdered either with premeditation or in the course of committing a robbery.... We have never suggested that in returning general verdicts in such cases the jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone. In these cases, as in litigation generally, different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree upon the bottom line. Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict. Id. at 630-32, 111 S.Ct. at 2496-97, 115 L.Ed.2d at 564-66 (quoting McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 449, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 1236-37, 108 L.Ed.2d 369, 384 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring)). The primary concern is that the defendant understands with some specificity the legal basis of the charge against him. Schad, 501 U.S. at 632-33, 111 S.Ct. at 2497, 115 L.Ed.2d at 565-66. Here we find that the jury instructions were proper because unanimity as to each of the preliminary factual issues was not necessary. The jury instruction on conspiracy to commit first-degree murder stated: In order for the defendant to be guilty of Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder in Count IV, the state must prove each of the following: 1. On or about 25th to 29th days of May, 1999 2. In the state of Idaho, County of Latah 3. the defendant, Dale Carter Shackelford, and Mary Margaret Abitz and Sonja Marie Abitz agreed 4. to commit the crime of Murder in the First Degree 5. the defendant intended that the crime would be committed 6. one of the parties to the agreement performed at least one of the following acts: A. Dale Carter Shackelford threatened to kill Donna Fontaine. B. Dale Carter Shackelford hid his presence from Donna Fontaine, Gary Fontaine, and Ted Meske. C. Dale Carter Shackelford went to Donna Fontaine's residence at 2168 Three Bear Road. D. Dale Carter Shackelford shot Donna Fontaine with a shotgun and pistol, killing her. 7. Such act was done for the purpose of carrying out the agreement. If any of the above has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If each of the above has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty. Second, the district court gave the instruction explaining the elements for conspiracy to commit first-degree arson as follows: In order for the defendant to be guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Arson in the First Degree in Count V, the state must prove each of the following: 1. On or about the 25th to 29th days of May, 1999 2. in the county of Latah 3. in the state of Idaho 4. the defendant, Dale Carter Shackelford, and Mary Margaret Abitz and Sonja Marie Abitz agreed 5. to commit the crime of Arson in the First Degree (as explained in instructions No. 19 and No. 20) 6. the defendant intended that the crime would be committed 7. one of the parties to the agreement performed at least one of the following acts: A. Dale Carter Shackelford hid his presence from Donna Fontaine, Gary Fontaine, and Ted Meske; B. Dale Carter Shackelford went to Donna Fontaine's residence at 2168 Three Bear Road; C. Dale Carter Shackelford poured flammable liquid in the garage at that location; D. Dale Carter Shackelford lit fires in both stories of the garage 8. such act was done for the purpose of carrying out the agreement. If any of the above has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Arson in the First Degree. If each of the above has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Arson in the First Degree. The jurors were also generally instructed that they were to return unanimous verdicts: In this case, your verdicts must be unanimous.... Your verdicts in this case cannot be arrived at by chance, by lot, or by compromise. It is the section of each instruction that requires the jury to find one of the parties to the agreement performed at least one of the following acts that Shackelford contends violated his right to due process by not requiring the jury make a unanimous finding. However, under Schad and Johnson, such a finding was not necessary. The jurors here agreed upon the bottom line: One of the parties performed at least one of the acts, and it was not necessary for the jury to reach unanimity on the underlying factual issues, so long as they unanimously decided on the verdict. Therefore, the jury instructions did not violate Shackelford's right to due process.