State v. Payne

Jury concurrence is necessary “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.” State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513, 517, 316 P3d 255 (2013).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for one count of menacing. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to either instruct the jury that the basis of a conviction for menacing must come from a single factual occurrence or compel the state to elect one factual occurrence amounting to menacing. On appeal, Defendant argued there were three threatening factual occurrences that could constitute menacing; meaning, the trial court should have required the State to elect only one factual occurrence or inform the jury they must agree one of the occurrences alone constituted menacing. In response, the State argued menacing does not require a single factual occurrence and all occurrences taken together constituted menacing. Jury concurrence is necessary “when the indictment charges a single violation of a crime but the evidence permits the jury to find multiple, separate occurrences of that crime.” State v. Pipkin, 354 Or 513, 517, 316 P3d 255 (2013). The Court held jury concurrence was unnecessary because the crime of menacing does not require one specific act.
                                                  
Affirmed.