Opinion ID: 2584374
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: issue 4: unanimous jury verdict

Text: Foster alleges his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated regarding the criminal threat and rape charges because the district court failed to give a unanimity instruction; i.e., the jury was not told to unanimously agree upon the specific criminal threat or rape that constituted each charge. In a multiple acts case, several acts are alleged and any one of them could constitute the crime charged. State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 115, 61 P.3d 701 (2003). This creates potential for uncertainty as to whether the jury unanimously agreed upon any particular act to convict on each specific charge. See State v. Voyles, 284 Kan. 239, 248, 160 P.3d 794 (2007). No unanimity instruction was given to Foster's jury. The State alleges there were no multiple acts, arguing in its brief the events were all part of one distinct act by the defendant. As an alternative position, the State contends any error was harmless. Foster concedes he did not request a unanimity instruction on either charge.