BROWN, Justice.
Appellant Ralph H. Fife was tried and convicted on charges of aggravated burglary and aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was not sentenced for aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated burglary on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and the form of the verdict.
We will reverse and remand for new trial.
On March 18, 1982, at 5:30 a.m. Sharon Underwood awoke to the clock radio in her bedroom. She reached out to turn off the radio so as not to awaken Mr. Williams, who was asleep in the same room. As she reached toward the radio, she discovered a man kneeling next to her bed. Mr. Williams was awakened by her outcry and sat up in bed. The intruder then reached across Underwood and struck Williams on the knee with a hammer that he had acquired after entering the apartment. Williams began to struggle with the intruder and, with Underwood’s help, he was able to turn the hammer to his advantage. After three blows to the intruder’s head, Williams finally subdued him until the police arrived. The intruder was later identified as appellant Ralph H. Fife, who was not acquainted with either Underwood or Williams.
The evidence showed that the appellant and a companion had been carousing from approximately 10:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. the morning of March 18. At approximately 5:00 a.m. Fife drove his companion to the apartment complex where Underwood lived. After dropping off his companion, Fife went to the Underwood apartment and entered through a door which had been left unlocked. Upon entering Underwood’s apartment, Fife at some point locked the door and procured a hammer that belonged to Underwood. He then entered Underwood’s bedroom.
Appellant was charged with committing two crimes, 1) aggravated burglary, and 2) aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was charged in Count 11 of the amended information with aggravated burglary with the intent to steal or with the intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon pursuant to § 6-7-201, W.S.1977, revised and renumbered § 6-3-301, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement).2
[567]*567The amended information alleged two alternative forms of intent whereby appellant could have been found guilty of aggravated burglary. These two forms of intent give rise to three ways the jury could have found appellant guilty of Count I: the jury could have found an intent to steal, an intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, or part of the jury could have found an intent to steal and part an intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
In Count II of the information, appellant was charged with aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Section 6-4-506, W.S.1977, revised and renumbered as § 6-2-502, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement).
Appellant was convicted of both charges by a jury but the trial court only sentenced him on the aggravated burglary count. Therefore, we address the aggravated burglary conviction exclusively in this appeal.
The issues as framed by appellant are: “The trial court erred in denying defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the aggravated burglary count because there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding of either intent to steal or intent to commit an assault, the two bases alleged in the information.
“A general verdict of guilty returned on an aggravated burglary count which alleges in the alternative intent to steal or intent to commit an assault violates defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict on all essential elements of a crime.
“Where alternative theories of guilt are submitted to a jury and a general verdict of guilty is returned which does not specify which theory the jury unanimously agreed upon, insufficiency of any alternative submitted is fatal to the verdict.”
We will begin by discussing the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to acquit. Appellant correctly describes our standard of review for a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.
“ ‘In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we examine and accept as true the evidence of the prosecution together with all logical and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, Aragon v. State, Wyo., 627 P.2d 599, 602 (1981); Chavez v. State, Wyo., 601 P.2d 166, 168 (1979); Russell v. State, Wyo., 583 P.2d 690, 694 (1978), leaving out entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict therewith, Grabill v. State, Wyo., 621 P.2d 802, 803 (1980); Chavez v. State, supra; Russell v. State, supra.
“ ‘A motion for judgment of acquittal is to be granted only when the evidence is such that a reasonable juror must have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the essential elements of the crime. Or, stated another way, if there is substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of the crime, the motion should not be granted. * * * ’ Leppek v. State, 636 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Wyo.1981). Also see Jacobs v. State, 641 P.2d 197, 197 (Wyo.1982).”
We note that a motion for acquittal raises the question of sufficiency of the evidence, a determination which is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Montez v. State, Wyo., 527 P.2d 1330 (1974).
Appellant argues that his motion for acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge should have been granted because of the lack of sufficient evidence to support a finding of either intent to steal or intent to commit a felony, in this case, aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the record and in a decision letter dated March 24, 1983. The trial court stated that it “ * * * agrees that there was no evidence of intent to assault, but that there was [568]*568evidence to support a finding of intent to steal; accordingly the motion is denied notwithstanding Court’s agreement with defense as to one of the legs this conviction stands on.”
The court’s decision in effect holds that there was no evidence, as a matter of law, from which the jury could have determined that the defendant, Fife, had the requisite intent to assault. We consider the court’s decision to be the law of this case and do not review that determination. Therefore, the evidence was legally insufficient on the intent to assault alternative of the aggravated burglary count and should not have been submitted to the jury. 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 470, p. 679 (1982). A jury determination of guilt for aggravated burglary based upon intent to assault would be contrary to law. The jury’s conviction for aggravated burglary could only properly be based upon an intent to steal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BROWN, Justice.
Appellant Ralph H. Fife was tried and convicted on charges of aggravated burglary and aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was not sentenced for aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated burglary on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and the form of the verdict.
We will reverse and remand for new trial.
On March 18, 1982, at 5:30 a.m. Sharon Underwood awoke to the clock radio in her bedroom. She reached out to turn off the radio so as not to awaken Mr. Williams, who was asleep in the same room. As she reached toward the radio, she discovered a man kneeling next to her bed. Mr. Williams was awakened by her outcry and sat up in bed. The intruder then reached across Underwood and struck Williams on the knee with a hammer that he had acquired after entering the apartment. Williams began to struggle with the intruder and, with Underwood’s help, he was able to turn the hammer to his advantage. After three blows to the intruder’s head, Williams finally subdued him until the police arrived. The intruder was later identified as appellant Ralph H. Fife, who was not acquainted with either Underwood or Williams.
The evidence showed that the appellant and a companion had been carousing from approximately 10:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. the morning of March 18. At approximately 5:00 a.m. Fife drove his companion to the apartment complex where Underwood lived. After dropping off his companion, Fife went to the Underwood apartment and entered through a door which had been left unlocked. Upon entering Underwood’s apartment, Fife at some point locked the door and procured a hammer that belonged to Underwood. He then entered Underwood’s bedroom.
Appellant was charged with committing two crimes, 1) aggravated burglary, and 2) aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was charged in Count 11 of the amended information with aggravated burglary with the intent to steal or with the intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon pursuant to § 6-7-201, W.S.1977, revised and renumbered § 6-3-301, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement).2
[567]*567The amended information alleged two alternative forms of intent whereby appellant could have been found guilty of aggravated burglary. These two forms of intent give rise to three ways the jury could have found appellant guilty of Count I: the jury could have found an intent to steal, an intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, or part of the jury could have found an intent to steal and part an intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
In Count II of the information, appellant was charged with aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Section 6-4-506, W.S.1977, revised and renumbered as § 6-2-502, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement).
Appellant was convicted of both charges by a jury but the trial court only sentenced him on the aggravated burglary count. Therefore, we address the aggravated burglary conviction exclusively in this appeal.
The issues as framed by appellant are: “The trial court erred in denying defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the aggravated burglary count because there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding of either intent to steal or intent to commit an assault, the two bases alleged in the information.
“A general verdict of guilty returned on an aggravated burglary count which alleges in the alternative intent to steal or intent to commit an assault violates defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict on all essential elements of a crime.
“Where alternative theories of guilt are submitted to a jury and a general verdict of guilty is returned which does not specify which theory the jury unanimously agreed upon, insufficiency of any alternative submitted is fatal to the verdict.”
We will begin by discussing the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to acquit. Appellant correctly describes our standard of review for a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.
“ ‘In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we examine and accept as true the evidence of the prosecution together with all logical and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, Aragon v. State, Wyo., 627 P.2d 599, 602 (1981); Chavez v. State, Wyo., 601 P.2d 166, 168 (1979); Russell v. State, Wyo., 583 P.2d 690, 694 (1978), leaving out entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict therewith, Grabill v. State, Wyo., 621 P.2d 802, 803 (1980); Chavez v. State, supra; Russell v. State, supra.
“ ‘A motion for judgment of acquittal is to be granted only when the evidence is such that a reasonable juror must have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the essential elements of the crime. Or, stated another way, if there is substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of the crime, the motion should not be granted. * * * ’ Leppek v. State, 636 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Wyo.1981). Also see Jacobs v. State, 641 P.2d 197, 197 (Wyo.1982).”
We note that a motion for acquittal raises the question of sufficiency of the evidence, a determination which is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Montez v. State, Wyo., 527 P.2d 1330 (1974).
Appellant argues that his motion for acquittal on the aggravated burglary charge should have been granted because of the lack of sufficient evidence to support a finding of either intent to steal or intent to commit a felony, in this case, aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the record and in a decision letter dated March 24, 1983. The trial court stated that it “ * * * agrees that there was no evidence of intent to assault, but that there was [568]*568evidence to support a finding of intent to steal; accordingly the motion is denied notwithstanding Court’s agreement with defense as to one of the legs this conviction stands on.”
The court’s decision in effect holds that there was no evidence, as a matter of law, from which the jury could have determined that the defendant, Fife, had the requisite intent to assault. We consider the court’s decision to be the law of this case and do not review that determination. Therefore, the evidence was legally insufficient on the intent to assault alternative of the aggravated burglary count and should not have been submitted to the jury. 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 470, p. 679 (1982). A jury determination of guilt for aggravated burglary based upon intent to assault would be contrary to law. The jury’s conviction for aggravated burglary could only properly be based upon an intent to steal. If the jury had determined that the appellant entered with an intent to assault and not with an intent to steal, the trial court would have been required to grant appellant’s motion for acquittal because of the apparent lack of sufficient evidence. Herein lies the problem; because of the general verdict, we do not know whether the jury based its conviction for aggravated burglary upon an intent to steal or an intent to assault.
The verdict in this case asked the jury to decide only two questions; the first being, is the defendant guilty or not guilty of the aggravated burglary count, and secondly, is the defendant guilty or not guilty of the aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon count.3 The jury did in fact find the defendant guilty of both counts. In Count I we cannot tell from the form of the verdict, however, whether the jury found the defendant guilty of the aggravated burglary charge based upon an intent to steal, or an intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, or if part of the jury found an intent to steal and part found an intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
If both theories of intent submitted to the jury were sufficiently supported by the evidence, we could uphold the general verdict on the aggravated burglary charge. See State v. Dixon, 127 Ariz. 554, 622 P.2d 501 (1980); People v. Failla, 64 Cal.2d 560, 51 Cal.Rptr. 103, 414 P.2d 39 (1966); Wells v. Commonwealth, Ky., 561 S.W.2d 85 (1978); State v. Hazelette, 8 Or.App. 44, 492 P.2d 501 (1972). However, there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the intent to assault element. We cannot uphold a general jury verdict when one of the alternate theories upon which the jury could have relied is in error. Sunkist Growers, Inc., et al. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., et al., 370 U.S. 19, 82 S.Ct. 1130, 8 L.Ed.2d 305, reh. denied, 370 U.S. 965, 82 S.Ct. 1577, 8 L.Ed.2d 834 (1962), citing Markley v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490, 5 S.Ct. 278, 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884). If one of the alternate theories submitted to the jury is unsupported by substantial evidence, the general verdict must be set aside unless the court can ascertain that the verdict was founded upon a theory supported by substantial evidence. State v. Carothers, 84 Wash.2d 256, 525 P.2d 731 (1974). The intent to commit aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon element of the aggravated burglary charge was unsupported by substantial evidence and we cannot say with certainty that the jury based its conviction on the intent to steal.
[569]*569Submitting claims to the jury which have no foundation in the evidence allows the jury to engage in conjecture or to speculate as to the defendant’s guilt. Russell v. State, Wyo., 583 P.2d 690, 694 (1978), citing United States v. Bethea, 442 F.2d 790 (D.C.Cir.1971). Parties are entitled to proper instructions covering their respective theories regarding the evidence submitted. Barber v. Sheridan Trust & Savings Bank, 53 Wyo. 65, 78 P.2d 1101 (1938).
We hold that it was error to instruct the jury on the intent to commit aggravated assault and battery element of the aggravated burglary when there was insufficient evidence to support the instruction. We further hold that the general verdict must be set aside because we cannot determine if the jury based its conviction upon the erroneous instruction. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.