Opinion ID: 1389514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court err in using one form of verdict on the murder charge of premeditated murder and felony murder?

Text: In the indictment, defendant was charged with premeditated murder and, in the alternative, felony murder. Defendant claims that because the jury received only one verdict form (Guilty or Not Guilty) on the murder charge, he was deprived of his right to be certain that there was a unanimous jury verdict in a capital case, in violation of Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, § 23. Defendant notes that this Court has held to the contrary in State v. Encinas, 132 Ariz. 493, 647 P.2d 624 (1982), asserts that case was incorrectly decided, and urges us to reconsider. Defendant claims that he is entitled to a unanimous jury determination with regard to all the elements of either premeditated or felony murder. Because the jury could not differentiate on the verdict form between the two types of first degree murder, defendant claims it is possible that some jurors believed he was guilty only of felony murder while others found him guilty only of premeditated murder. We have repeatedly rejected this argument. Although we agree that violation of the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict would constitute fundamental error and could be raised for the first time on appeal, we have recently reaffirmed our holding that Article 2, § 23 only requires one form of verdict for first degree murder. State v. Berndt, 138 Ariz. 41, 672 P.2d 1311 (1983) citing State v. Encinas, supra . Although defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act [of first degree murder] was committed. State v. Encinas, 132 Ariz. at 496, 647 P.2d at 627. We find no error in the use of single form of verdict in this case.