State v. Forrester
In State v. Forrester, 134 Ariz. 444, 447, 657 P.2d 432, 435 (App. 1982), the Court explained, "If a statute describes a single offense which may be committed in more than one way, it is unnecessary for there to be unanimity as to the means by which the crime is committed provided there is substantial evidence to support each of the means charged."
There, the statute at issue was A.R.S. 13-1802 governing theft. Id. at 446-47, 657 P.2d at 434-35.
The defendant was indicted with theft by controlling the property of another with the intent to deprive the other of that property, see 13-1802(A)(1), or converting property entrusted to him for an unauthorized term or use, see 13-1802(A)(2). Forrester, 134 Ariz. at 447, 657 P.2d at 435.
The trial court instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty by either means. Id.
On appeal, the defendant argued the court "erred by failing to require the jury to specify under what theory it found him guilty." Id.
The Court rejected that argument after determining the theft statute described a single offense capable of being committed in various ways and did not require jury unanimity on the way it was committed. Id. at 447-48, 657 P.2d at 435-36.