State v. Pulkrabek, 900 N.W.2d 798

In Sep. 2014, sports memorabilia were stolen from a trailer.
A search warrant for Pulkrabek’s property issued July 2015 led to recovery of some stolen items in Pulkrabek’s truck.
Pulkrabek was charged with theft of property under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-02, on a single count covering both taking and receiving.
The district court combined the two pattern jury instructions into one; the instruction did not specify unanimity on which act the jury believed.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the single theft count; Pulkrabek appealed arguing the jury was not required to unanimously decide which theory (taking vs receiving) applied.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that § 12.1-23-02 contemplates alternative means of committing theft and unanimity on the specific act was not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury must unanimously decide the theory of theft	State argued subsections are alternative means, not separate elements	Pulkrabek argued jury must unanimous on the act proved (taking vs receiving)	No unanimity required; subsections are alternative means and the verdict is valid

State v. Sperle, 680 N.W.2d 275 (N.D. 2004) (allowed general verdict where alternatives are not separate offenses; due process not violated)
State v. Martinez, 865 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 2015) (discussed unanimity issues when multiple counts involve distinct acts; not controlling here)
State v. Bourbeau, 250 N.W.2d 259 (N.D. 1977) (consolidation of theft statutes; alternatives are not separate elements)