In State v. Brett, 126 Wn.2d 136, 892 P.2d 29 (1995) the Court upheld an instruction on the issue of jury unanimity because it separated out the separate aggravating circumstances in RCW 10.95.020(9) and explicitly required unanimity as to each alternative on which the jury found Brett guilty. Brett, 126 Wn.2d at 174 ("The second to the last paragraph of the challenged jury instruction clearly informs the jury that if a unanimous decision on each element of an alternative cannot be reached then it is not to 'fill in the blank for that alternative.'").