State v. Walters, 368 N.C. 749

On Aug. 19, 2005 defendant Gary Walters beat Paul Franklin with a table leg, causing catastrophic facial injuries and vision loss. Defendant then placed Franklin in Franklin’s van and drove to an isolated location. Defendant asked a bystander whether he should kill Franklin.
Defendant was indicted for first-degree kidnapping, attempted first-degree murder, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Jury convicted on all counts on June 28, 2013.
The trial court’s jury instruction for first-degree kidnapping allowed conviction if the jury found the defendant removed the victim "for the purpose of facilitating the commission of or flight following the commission of a felony."
On appeal the Court of Appeals vacated the kidnapping conviction, holding the disjunctive instruction risked a non‑unanimous verdict (some jurors could rely on "facilitating commission," others on "facilitating flight").
The State petitioned for discretionary review. The Supreme Court considered whether such a disjunctive instruction violated the state constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a disjunctive jury instruction ("for the purpose of facilitating the commission of or flight following the commission of a felony") violates unanimity requirements	State: instruction permissible where it lists alternative purposes that can satisfy one element	Walters: instruction allowed jurors to convict on different, non‑unanimous theories (some on commission, others on flight)	Held: instruction did not violate unanimity; reversible decision of Court of Appeals was reversed in part
Whether evidence supported either disjunct of the instruction	State: evidence (beating, transport to isolated spot, asking whether to kill) supports intent to facilitate the assault or continued attempt to kill	Walters: argued insufficient evidence to support both theories	Held: evidence was sufficient to support either theory presented in the disjunctive instruction

State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 603 S.E.2d 93 (N.C. 2004) (approves disjunctive instructions that present alternative acts establishing an element where focus is on intent)
State v. Diaz, 317 N.C. 545, 346 S.E.2d 488 (N.C. 1986) (disjunctive instruction that permits conviction for either of two separate offenses is fatally ambiguous)
State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561, 391 S.E.2d 177 (N.C. 1990) (distinguishes conduct‑focused and intent‑focused disjunctive instructions for unanimity)
State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298, 412 S.E.2d 308 (N.C. 1991) (discusses intent‑focused disjunctive instructions satisfying unanimity)
State v. Kyle, 333 N.C. 687, 430 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1993) (criminal act may continue after essential elements have arisen; supports inference of continuing intent)
State v. Hall, 305 N.C. 77, 286 S.E.2d 552 (N.C. 1982) (earlier discussion of completion of crimes and continuing acts)