Does Utah require jury unanimity on alternative theories of the same crime? State v. Hummel Explained

In State v. Hummel, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a fundamental question about jury unanimity: whether the Unanimous Verdict Clause of the Utah Constitution requires jurors to agree not only on guilt, but also on which specific theory or method of committing a crime supports that verdict.

Background and Facts

John Hummel served as Garfield County’s contract public defender. Rather than fulfill his obligation to represent indigent defendants, Hummel convinced potential clients to retain him privately by claiming they didn’t qualify for appointed counsel or that private representation would yield better results. Through this scheme, he obtained money, firearms, and promissory notes from five clients. The prosecution charged him with theft under multiple theories: theft by deception and theft by extortion. The jury instructions permitted conviction if jurors unanimously found theft occurred under any of the presented theories, without requiring agreement on which specific theory applied.

Key Legal Issues

Hummel challenged his convictions on several grounds, but the central constitutional issue was whether Utah’s Unanimous Verdict Clause requires jury unanimity on alternative theories of committing the same offense. He argued that without unanimity on whether theft occurred by deception or extortion, the verdict was constitutionally invalid.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court firmly rejected Hummel’s unanimity argument, holding that the Unanimous Verdict Clause requires unanimity only “as to the jury’s verdict—its determination of guilt, or in other words its determination that the prosecution has proven each element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court emphasized that Utah’s theft statute consolidates formerly separate offenses into “a single offense” with unified elements. Alternative methods of committing theft—whether by deception, extortion, or other means—are merely “exemplary means of satisfying the criminal elements defined by the legislature,” not separate elements requiring unanimous agreement.

Drawing on the historical understanding of unanimity requirements, the court explained that unanimity was required only “on the point or issue submitted to the jury”—traditionally, the determination of guilt or innocence. The court warned that requiring unanimity on every theory or method would create an unworkable “slippery slope,” potentially requiring juror agreement “on every minute detail presented by the evidence.”

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial clarity for Utah practitioners. Defense attorneys cannot challenge convictions based solely on the prosecution’s presentation of multiple theories of the same offense, even without special verdict forms requiring jurors to specify which theory they accepted. However, the court preserved existing precedent requiring unanimity and sufficient evidence for alternative elements of crimes. Prosecutors retain broad latitude to present alternative theories without risking reversal, while the decision reinforces that preservation of error rules apply equally to claims of prosecutorial misconduct.