State v. Pipkin

A concurrence jury instruction is required when determining which crime a defendant is guilty of, but it is not required when determining which particular acts a defendant perpetrated to constitute an element of a single crime.

Defendant gave the victim his food stamp card, broke into her apartment that night, attacked and injured her, and left after he got his food stamp card back. At trial, a jury convicted defendant of first-degree burglary, fourth-degree assault, and menacing. The Court of Appeals determined that there was sufficient evidence that the victim suffered pain; therefore the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the assault charge. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in denying his request for a concurrence jury instruction for first-degree burglary. The Court found that a concurrence jury instruction is only required when the jury is determining which crime a defendant committed. This type of instruction is not required when determining which acts satisfy an element of a single crime. The Court held that “entering unlawfully” and “remaining unlawfully” are alternative methods to satisfy the “enters or remains unlawfully” element of a single crime, first-degree burglary, therefore the trial court did not err in refusing to issue a concurrence jury instruction. Affirmed.