State v. Abbott, 1 CA-CR 17-0061

In October 2015 a grand jury indicted Jesse James Abbott on two methamphetamine-related counts: Count 1 (conspiracy to commit any of 10 listed offenses between Jan–Sep 2015) and Count 15 (sale of dangerous drugs, Sept 17–18, 2015).
At trial the court instructed the jury that it must be unanimous that Abbott conspired, but jurors need not agree on which specific underlying offense of the listed offenses he conspired to commit.
The jury found Abbott guilty of conspiracy (selecting a list of nine class 2 felonies as the object) and guilty of sale of dangerous drugs (count 15).
Abbott was sentenced to concurrent terms (9.25 years on conspiracy; 15.75 years on sale) and appealed.
On appeal Abbott argued (1) the indictment/charge was duplicitous and (2) insufficient evidence supported the sale conviction, which relied primarily on an informant’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the conspiracy indictment/charge was duplicitous	State: charge was proper because evidence showed a single conspiratorial agreement covering multiple objects; no reversible error	Abbott: indictment/charge alleged multiple crimes in one count (duplicitous) and jury should have had to unanimously agree on the specific underlying offense	Court: No reversible error — a single conspiracy with multiple objects is permissible; unanimity required only as to conspiracy, not the particular object(s) proved
Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on sale of dangerous drugs (count 15)	State: informant’s testimony and transfer supported conviction	Abbott: informant was incredible and procedures (controlled buy, recording) were lacking, so evidence was insufficient	Court: Evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution was substantial; credibility for jury to decide; conviction affirmed

State v. Butler, 230 Ariz. 465 (App. 2012) (duplicitous indictment principles and waiver/fundamental error framework)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (2005) (pretrial objection requirement for duplicitous indictment)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental error)
State v. Klokic, 219 Ariz. 241 (App. 2008) (single criminal transaction and handling of multiple acts in conspiracy charges)
State v. Neese, 126 Ariz. 499 (App. 1980) (evidence of violations of different statutes does not create multiple conspiracies)
State v. Willoughby, 181 Ariz. 530 (1995) (conviction may stand if prosecution proves conspiracy to commit any one charged object)
State v. Ortiz, 131 Ariz. 195 (1981) (when single conspiracy alleges multiple objects, proof of any one supports conviction)
State v. West, 238 Ariz. 482 (App. 2015) (jury unanimity required as to guilt for the single crime charged, not necessarily the means)
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228 (App. 2004) (appellate courts defer to jury credibility determinations)