The State of Washington, Respondent v. Alejandro Ortega-Martinez, Petitioner

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to express jury unanimity on the alternative means of committing a crime only where the evidence is insufficient to support one of the submitted means; because sufficient evidence supported both forcible compulsion and mental incapacity as means of second degree rape, Ortega-Martinez's general verdict of guilty did not require a special verdict form specifying the means. The court further held that the United States Supreme Court's due process decision in Griffin does not erode the broader protections of Washington's state constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Interpreting RCW 9A.44.010(4) in light of the Legislature's intent to broadly protect the mentally disabled from sexual exploitation, the court held that mental incapacity turns on whether the victim's condition prevented a meaningful understanding of the nature or consequences of sexual intercourse, and concluded sufficient evidence supported that means here. The conviction was affirmed on different grounds from the Court of Appeals; Chief Justice Andersen, concurring in the result and joined by Justices Brachtenbach and Durham, would not have construed the statute as broadly as the majority.