Opinion ID: 877465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the unanimous verdict requirement in the context of the charges filed: failure of the state to follow statutory procedures

Text: First, we must recognize that in charging Coleman by alleging several statutory theories for the same offense, the State failed to follow proper statutory guidelines. If it had done so, the problems we face here would not exist. The applicable statute, section 46-11-404, MCA, clearly sets out the procedure for the filing of alternative charges, that is, ... different versions of the same offense.  Section 46-11-404(1), MCA, states in relevant part: (1) An indictment, information, or complaint may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, different statements of the same offense, or two or more different offenses of the same class under separate counts .... The prosecution is not required to elect between the different offenses or counts set forth in the indictment, information or complaint, and the defendant may be convicted of any number of the offenses charged. Each offense of which the defendant is convicted must be stated in the verdict or the finding of the court. (Emphasis added.) Although the statute uses the word may, the message is that the prosecutor should charge in the manner stated in order to avoid problems such as exist in this case. The prosecutor did charge three separate crimes, and this statute permits him to do so. But the statute also states that if two or more statements of the same offense are charged, that it be done so under separate counts. If that had been done here, the jury could have returned a verdict on each of the separate counts, and therefore the basis for its decision would be specified. The statute also clearly contemplates this procedure by stating that the prosecutor is not required to elect on his theories, but that each offense of which the defendant is convicted must be stated in the verdict ... I read this last sentence to mean, in context with the entire subsection, that if a defendant is charged in separate counts with a different statement of the same offense, a verdict form must be prepared for that separate statement, and the jury must return a verdict on that particular statement of the offense. If this procedure had been followed in this case, we would know the precise basis on which the jury reached its verdict on each charge. It is the State then, who must assume the responsibility for improperly charging Coleman and for setting in motion the ambiguous verdicts. The State's error in not following this statute, is magnified by the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous on each statutory theory of criminal responsibility presented to it by the instructions. Again, that fault must be laid to the State and to the trial court. Furthermore, the trial court provided the ambiguous verdicts for the jurys' case. I proceed next to a discussion of the general law in relation to the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict, and then I will discuss the charges, the jury instructions, and the verdicts returned in this case.