923 N.W.2d 345
Minn. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Adam Ryan Lagred was tried by jury for first-degree aggravated robbery, second-degree assault, and threats of violence based on an incident where he struck the victim J.H. with a baseball bat and took a pocket knife during a parking-lot confrontation.
- The district court instructed the jury that aggravated robbery could be proved if the defendant (1) was armed with a dangerous weapon OR (2) inflicted bodily harm while committing a robbery; the jury returned a general guilty verdict on aggravated robbery.
- Lagred did not object to the jury instructions at trial and appealed after conviction, arguing the disjunctive instruction violated his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict.
- The court reviewed the instruction for plain error (because Lagred did not object) and analyzed whether the statutory alternatives are elements requiring unanimity or merely alternative means.
- The court applied statutory interpretation and precedent (including Schad/Richardson framework) to conclude the statute sets out alternative means, not separate elements, and that treating them as means does not offend due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction violated unanimity | State: jury need only be unanimous on elements, not on which alternative means was used | Lagred: statute’s "armed with a dangerous weapon OR inflicts bodily harm" phrase creates separate elements so jurors must unanimously agree on which occurred | The alternatives are means, not separate elements; unanimity as to means not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130 (Minn. 2012) (jury instructions must accurately state law)
- State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 2014) (review instructions as whole for accuracy)
- State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 2016) (plain-error standard when defendant fails to object)
- State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (plain-error review principles)
- State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2002) (statutory alternatives may be means; unanimity not required for means)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (plurality: jury need not agree on single means when statute lists alternative means; use statutory interpretation and due-process fairness test)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (use statutory construction to determine whether alternatives are elements)
- State v. Pendleton, 725 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2007) (alternative statutory purposes of kidnapping are means, not separate elements)
- State v. Hart, 477 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (disjunctive instruction for criminal sexual conduct did not require jury to specify which alternative)
- State v. Dalbec, 789 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (domestic assault alternatives are means; unanimity on means not required)
- State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2001) (grouping alternative acts as elements does not create due-process unanimity problem)
Bottom Line
The court affirmed Lagred’s aggravated-robbery conviction, holding the statute’s "armed with a dangerous weapon OR inflicts bodily harm" language describes alternative means of committing first-degree aggravated robbery (not separate elements), and those alternatives are sufficiently similar in seriousness that a jury need not unanimously agree on which particular means occurred.