State v. Stempf

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a specific-unanimity instruction was necessary, in part, because the state told the jury during closing arguments that either of 8 two alleged acts of drug possession could satisfy the possession element of the charged crime
• declining to decide whether “a different result would be warranted [if] the separate acts constitute[d] a continuing course of conduct”
• requiring the “prosecution to elect the act upon which it will rely for conviction”
• defendant was charged with one count of drug possession based on alleged acts occurring at two different times and two different locations with two different defenses
• “Where jury instructions allow for possible significant disagreement among jurors as to what acts the defendant committed, the instructions violate the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict.”
• “Where jury instructions allow for possible significant disagreement among jurors as to what acts the defendant committed, the instructions violate the defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).