Legal Definitions - alternative-means doctrine

The alternative-means doctrine is a principle in criminal law that addresses situations where a single crime can be committed in more than one way.

Here's how it works:

• The jury must unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty of the specific crime charged.
• However, the jury does not need to unanimously agree on the exact method or "means" by which the defendant committed that crime.
• This is permissible as long as there is substantial evidence presented to support each of the possible methods of committing the crime.

In essence, if the law defines a crime broadly enough to encompass several different actions, the jury can convict if they all agree the crime happened, even if they disagree on the precise action that constituted it, provided each potential action was adequately proven.

Here are some examples to illustrate this doctrine:

• Example 1: Burglary

  Imagine a defendant is charged with burglary, which typically involves unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit a crime inside. The prosecution presents evidence that the defendant either picked the lock on the front door or climbed through an unlocked window. Both actions constitute unlawful entry. During deliberations, all twelve jurors agree that the defendant unlawfully entered the building with criminal intent. However, six jurors believe the defendant picked the lock, while the other six believe the defendant entered through the window. Under the alternative-means doctrine, the jury can still return a unanimousguilty verdict for burglary because they all agree the crime of burglary occurred, even if they don't agree on the specific method of entry, as long as there was sufficient evidence presented for both possibilities.

• Example 2: Embezzlement

  Consider a case where a financial manager is accused of embezzlement, which involves fraudulently taking money entrusted to them. The prosecution provides evidence suggesting two possible ways the manager could have committed the crime: either by creating fake invoices to divert funds or by directly transferring money from client accounts to a personal account. Both actions fit the definition of embezzlement. The jury unanimously concludes that the manager embezzled funds. However, some jurors are convinced the fake invoices were the method, while others believe the direct transfers were the means. Because both methods were supported by evidence and the jury is unanimous on the ultimate guilt of embezzlement, the alternative-means doctrine allows for a conviction.

• Example 3: Criminal Damage to Property

  Suppose a defendant is charged with criminal damage to property after a car's windshield was shattered. Witnesses testify that the defendant was seen near the car and had an argument with the owner. The prosecution presents evidence that the defendant either threw a rock at the windshield or struck it with a baseball bat. Both actions result in criminal damage. The jury unanimously agrees that the defendant intentionally damaged the car's windshield. However, some jurors are convinced a rock was used, while others believe it was a bat. As long as there was enough evidence to support both theories, the alternative-means doctrine allows the jury to find the defendant guilty of criminal damage to property without needing to agree on the specific object used.