State v. Valentini, 299 P.3d 751

Valentini was indicted on one count of second-degree murder with three possible mental states: intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
The jury was given a single verdict form and no instruction requiring unanimity on which mental state applied.
Valentini’s counsel argued the jury must unanimously agree on the specific mental state; the court advised unanimity on guilt, not on the mental state.
Valentini was convicted and sentenced to 22 years; he timely appealed challenging the verdict form and instructions as duplicitous and non-unanimous.
Arizona law treats second-degree murder as one offense that can be committed in three ways, with equal punishment for each mental state.
The court held the three mental states are alternate means to satisfy the mens rea element, not separate offenses requiring unanimity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the indictment duplicitous and did it deprive Valentini of a unanimous verdict?	Valentini argues the indictment unguided unanimity on the act and theory.	Valentini contends the jury must unanimously agree on the mental state.	No; the indictment was not duplicitous and unanimity on the mental state was not required.
Does second-degree murder require jurors to unanimously agree on the specific mental state?	Valentini claims jurors must unanimously pick a mental state (intentional, knowing, reckless).	Valentini argues the three theories create multiple offenses requiring unanimity.	No; unanimity is only on the mens rea element, not on the chosen mental state.

State v. Beasley, 205 Ariz. 334, 70 P.3d 463 (App.2003) (unanimity rights under Arizona law)
State v. Encinas, 132 Ariz. 493, 647 P.2d 624 (1982) (one offense with multiple manners of committing)
State v. Schad, 163 Ariz. 411, 788 P.2d 1162 (App.1989) (unanimity in murder variants)
State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 400, 752 P.2d 489 (App.1985) (three culpable states equal in second-degree murder)
State v. Freeney, 223 Ariz. 110, 219 P.3d 1039 (2009) (second-degree murder as one offense with three states)
State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 9, 859 P.2d 119 (1993) (kidnapping unanimity under multiple purposes)
State v. James, 297 P.3d 182 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (assault statute multiple acts; separate offenses governed by harms)