State v. Pipkin, 316 P.3d 255

Defendant charged with first-degree burglary under ORS 164.225/164.215 for unlawfully entering or remaining in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein.
Trial court refused defense requests to require the state to elect a theory (enter unlawfully vs remain unlawfully) or to give a Boots-like 10-jury concurrence instruction.
Indictment and trial evidence allowed findings that defendant unlawfully entered, or unlawfully remained, or both, with accompanying criminal intent.
Defense sought either election or Boots instruction; trial court denied; jury found defendant guilty.
Court of Appeals affirmed; issue reduced to whether entering and remaining unlawfully are separate elements and whether Article I, section 11 requires unanimity on them.
Court analyzes Boots and King lineage to determine legislative intent and constitutional limits regarding multiple means of proving a single element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering and remaining unlawfully are separate elements requiring unanimity.	Pipkin; Boots framework triggers unanimity.	Entering/remain unlawfully are separate elements under Boots.	No; they are interchangeable means proving a single unlawful-presence element.
Whether ORS 164.205(3) uses “or” inclusively to allow one or both methods to prove the same element.	Statutory text supports separate elements needing unanimity.	Text favors inclusive interpretation.	Inclusive; entering/remain unlawfully may be proven by either or both.
Whether Article I, section 11 requires jury unanimity on underlying facts to prove the single element.	Boots/Boots-like rule requires unanimity on facts essential to prove the element.	Historical context allows non-unanimous general verdict when multiple means exist.	Article I, section 11 does not require unanimity on underlying factual acts for this single element.

Boots v. State, 308 Or 374 (1987) (juror unanimity required for separate elements; multiple means may define a single element under statute)
King v. State, 316 Or 437 (1993) (two alternative means prove a single element; due process considerations)
State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455 (2000) (multiple occurrences of predicate crimes; unanimity concerns when proving one count)
State v. Hale, 335 Or 612 (2003) (Boots-related concerns with multiple predicate analyses in single counts)
State v. Reyes, 209 Or 595 (1957) (whether indictment covers multiple occurrences of a crime)
State v. White, 341 Or 624 (2006) (legislative history of burglary’s enter/remain unlawfully language)
State v. Reinke, 354 Or 98 (2013) (interpretation framework for constitutional/textual analysis of amendments)
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (due process concerns about unanimity and alternative means (federal context))