Cited by

That is an assault, you are no[t] allowed to put your hand on an officer, but again, another assault occurred in the cell.” ¶9 A duplicitous charge exists “[w]hen the text of an indictment refers only to one criminal act, but multiple alleged criminal acts are introduced to prove the charge.”

We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolve all inferences against the defendant, 3 STATE v. HARPER Decision of the Court ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2008), but we review the superior court’s Rule 20 decision de novo, ¶ 86 (2022).

Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the convictions, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2008), the evidence presented at trial established the following facts.

¶104 ¶ 12 (App. 2008), for the proposition that an indictment may be duplicitous when its text “refers only to one criminal act, but multiple alleged criminal acts are introduced to prove the charge.” But the Klokic court acknowledged that “in drafting an indictment, the State may choose to charge as one count separat

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict and resolve all inferences against the defendant, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2008) (citation omitted), but we review precluded evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent

¶10 The State may charge several criminal acts as one count “even if those acts might otherwise provide a basis for charging multiple criminal violations.” ¶ 14 (App. 2008); (holding that “where numerous transactions are merely parts of a larger scheme, a single count encompassing the entire scheme is proper.”).

One measure is a multiple acts instruction, which informs “the jury that they must agree unanimously on a specific act that constitutes the crime before the defendant can be found guilty.” ¶ 14 (App. 2008) (citation omitted).

¶9 A duplicitous charge occurs when “the text of an indictment refers only to one criminal act, but multiple alleged criminal acts are introduced to prove the charge.” ¶ 12 (App. 2008).

See Delgado, 232 Ariz. at 188, ¶ 18; -44, ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2008).

¶ 12 (App. 2008) (noting that this disparity is a “duplicitous charge”).

dy any duplicity by requiring the State “to elect the act which it alleges constitutes the crime, or instruct the jury that they must agree unanimously on a specific act that constitutes the crime before the 8 STATE v. SUTTER Decision of the Court defendant can be found guilty.” ¶ 14 (App. 2008) ().

¶35 ¶ 14 (App. 2008), however, Hester argues the State was required to elect a particular act upon which to base a conviction or, alternatively, the court was obligated to instruct jurors that they all must agree on a specific act to support any guilty verdict.

¶ 13 (App. 2008) (noting defendant preserved issue regarding duplicitous charge by requesting trial court take one of two curative measures).

8 STATE v. TAMALA Decision of the Court ¶30 A duplicitous charge exists “[w]hen the text of an indictment refers only to one criminal act, but multiple alleged criminal acts are introduced to prove the charge[.]” ¶ 12 (App. 2008).

We have held that “where numerous transactions are merely parts of a larger scheme, a single count encompassing the entire scheme is proper.” ¶ 18 (App. 2008) (“[M]ultiple acts may be considered part of the same criminal transaction when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

¶ 14 (App. 2008) (“[I]n drafting an indictment, the State may choose to charge as one count separate criminal acts that occurred during the course of a single criminal undertaking even if those acts might otherwise provide a basis for charging multiple criminal violations.”).

¶8 As he notes in his appellate brief, the superior court need not take measures to cure a duplicitous charge “in those instances in which all the separate acts that the State intends to introduce into evidence are part of a single criminal transaction.” ¶ 15 (App. 2008).

¶8 A duplicitous charge occurs where “the text of an indictment refers only to one criminal act, but multiple alleged criminal acts are introduced to prove the charge.” ¶ 12 2 The final jury instruction given read: The crime of Resisting Arrest requires proof that: 1.

-44, ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2008).

¶ 10 (App. 2008) ( and then Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 25 Millis argues even if child abuse under § 13-3623(A)(1) is a single unified offense, he suffered a , because the state introduced evidence of multiple acts to support the child abuse charge that were not part of the same criminal transaction.