Opinion ID: 3064442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withholding of Unanimity Instruction

Text: The next issue is whether the indictment should have been dismissed because it was duplicitous and whether the district court should have given the jury a unanimity instruction. [5] An indictment is considered duplicitous if a single count combines two or more different offenses. United States v. UCO Oil Co., 546 F.2d 833, 835 (9th Cir. 1976). A danger of duplicity is that a jury could find a defendant guilty on a count without reaching a unanimous verdict on the commission of an offense. Id. Renteria contends that the allegation, “used in interstate and foreign commerce, and in an activity affecting interstate commerce,” contains two separate offenses and the indictment, therefore, is duplicitous. It is Renteria’s position that, because the district court refused to give a unanimity instruction and used a general verdict form, it is unknown whether the jurors arrived at a unanimous verdict. This argument lacks merit. The indictment is not duplicitous and no unanimity instruction was required. [6] Some crimes can be committed by several alternative means. It is proper for the government to charge different means of a crime connected by conjunctions in the indictment when the means are listed disjunctively in the statute. Id. at 838. The allegation of the count at issue, “used in interstate and foreign commerce, and in an activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” describes a single element. The allegation follows the language of the statute but includes “and” instead of “or” between the two methods of meeting the interstate/foreign commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). That statute requires the following elements for a violation UNITED STATES v. RENTERIA 2029 such as that charged in this case: a defendant must (1) maliciously; (2) damage or destroy a building; (3) by means of fire; and (4) the building must have been “used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (emphasis added). “When a statute specifies two or more ways in which an offense may be committed, all may be alleged in the conjunctive in one count and proof of any of those acts conjunctively charged may establish guilt.” United States v. Urrutia, 897 F.2d 430, 432 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The district court instructed the jury that the fourth element of § 844(i) was: that the building or other property that was damaged or destroyed was used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce. What the fourth element means is this: a building is used in an activity substantially affecting interstate commerce if the building is actively used for commercial purposes and not merely having a passive connection to commerce. Ordinarily, a religious house of worship would not be involved in an activity affecting commerce because a house of worship exists for religious purposes and not for having activities that are commercial or economic in character. However, a house of worship may affect interstate commerce if it takes on economic functions unrelated to worship. [7] The wording of this instruction is not open to jury confusion. The indictment is not duplicitous and the district court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction. See United States v. Parker, 991 F.2d 1493, 1498 (9th Cir. 1993).