What Are Alternative Means Crimes in Washington Law?
Some Washington crimes can be committed in more than one legally defined way. When a single statute describes one offense but lists multiple ways of committing it, lawyers often call it an “alternative means” crime.
This matters because it affects how juries reach a verdict. It can also create appeal issues when the prosecution argues multiple statutory “means,” but the evidence does not actually support all of them.
What “Alternative Means” Really Means
An alternative means crime is usually one criminal charge where the statute provides more than one method for proving the same offense.
In these cases, the State may present more than one statutory means to the jury. A general guilty verdict can still be valid even if jurors do not make a separate, express finding about which means occurred—so long as the evidence is sufficient to support each means the jury was allowed to rely on.
That sufficiency requirement is often where the case turns.
How This Connects to Jury Unanimity in Washington
Washington generally requires unanimity for a criminal conviction. The jury must be unanimous on the bottom line: guilty or not guilty.
Where things get complicated is what jurors must be unanimous about inside that verdict. With alternative means crimes, the issue is often whether jurors must agree on the same statutory means, or whether they only need to agree that the defendant committed the crime charged.
Courts commonly analyze it this way: a general guilty verdict can stand without a special finding on the specific means, as long as each alternative means submitted to the jury is supported by sufficient evidence, or the jury is otherwise required to agree on one means.
Washington courts discuss this rule in State v. Owens (Washington Supreme Court).
If one submitted means is not supported by the evidence, the verdict can become vulnerable because the jury’s general verdict does not reveal which route jurors relied on.
A Familiar Example: Burglary and the “Enter or Remain” Language
Burglary is a helpful way to understand how alternative means issues can come up, because the statutory language is easy to visualize.
Washington’s burglary statutes use “enters or remains unlawfully” phrasing. Depending on how the charge is written and argued, the State may try to prove the case through either route.
The key point is not that every burglary case becomes an alternative means case. The practical point is this:
If the jury is told it can convict based on more than one statutory route, the evidence needs to support each route the jury was allowed to rely on.
For the statute language, see RCW 9A.52.030 (Burglary in the Second Degree). If your burglary case is connected to a protection order or domestic violence allegation, see Burglary and Domestic Violence Charges.
Where This Comes Up Most Often in Real Cases
In practice, this issue tends to show up when the State wants the flexibility of multiple theories—especially in cases where the prosecution is trying to cover gaps by presenting more than one route to guilt.
From the defense side, the concern is straightforward: if the jury is told it can convict based on either of two statutory routes, the State should not be allowed to keep a weak route in the case “just in case.”
That is why the same questions come up over and over:
- did the State present more than one statutory means for the same charge?
- did the jury instructions allow conviction based on either means?
- was there sufficient evidence to support each means the jury was allowed to rely on?
Why Evidence and Instructions Matter More Than Labels
A lot of “alternative means” fights are really about what the jury was allowed to do.
Even if the statute has multiple routes, the outcome often turns on:
- how the charge was written,
- what the prosecutor argued,
- what the judge instructed,
- and whether the evidence actually supported each route submitted.
If you want background on what evidence juries can consider (and what can be excluded), see What Evidence is Admissible in a Washington Criminal Trial?
What a Defense Lawyer Looks for
This is one of those issues where small choices at trial can matter later.
A careful review usually includes:
- identifying the statutory alternatives in the charging language
- tracking how the State argued the case (opening, witness exams, closing)
- reviewing the jury instructions to see what the jury was told it could rely on
- testing whether the evidence supports each route the jury was allowed to use
If one route is weak, the defense may push to narrow the case before it goes to the jury. Depending on the situation, that can include:
- moving to strike an unsupported alternative from the instructions
- objecting to arguments that invite conviction on an unsupported route
- requesting a more specific unanimity instruction when the law requires it
- preserving the issue if the court allows an unsupported means to go to the jury
If your case involves allegations like assault, the same “sufficiency of evidence” questions often show up in a different form—see Evidence Required for a Conviction in an Assault Case in Washington and Tacoma Assault Defense Attorneys.
Why This Can Matter Before Any Appeal Is Filed
Alternative means issues are not just appellate arguments. They can shape the case at the trial level.
They can affect:
- what the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
- how many theories the State is allowed to submit to the jury
- whether the defense can force the State to commit to what it can actually prove
- whether a conviction is legally stable if the jury is given unsupported routes to guilt
If a conviction has already happened and the question is what comes next, see Guide to Post-Conviction Relief Options in Washington State.
Do Jurors in Washington Have to Agree On the Same Facts?
Jurors must be unanimous on the verdict. Whether jurors must agree on a specific statutory route can depend on the statute, the instructions, and whether each submitted route is supported by sufficient evidence.
Does This Mean the State Can Argue Multiple Theories and Let the Jury Pick One?
Only if the jury is instructed properly and the evidence supports the theories being submitted. The problem arises when an unsupported theory is sent to the jury, because a general verdict does not reveal what theory jurors relied on.
Is This the Same Thing as “Multiple Acts”?
No. Multiple acts involves different incidents that could support the same charge and can require the State to select a specific act or the court to require agreement on the same act. Alternative means is about different statutory routes to proving a single offense.
How Do You Know Whether Your Charge Involves Alternative Means?
Start with the statute and the charging language. If the statute lists “either/or” routes and the State is advancing multiple routes, it is worth having the instructions and the evidence reviewed with this issue in mind.
Talk to a Washington Defense Attorney About Your Options
Alternative means issues can affect what the jury is allowed to consider, how the case is argued, and whether a conviction is legally secure.
If you are charged with a crime where the State is advancing multiple statutory routes, or you believe a conviction may rest on an unsupported route, getting legal advice early can make a difference. Learn more about working with Tacoma criminal defense lawyers at Smith & White. We can be reached through our online form or by calling (253) 203-1645 to set up a meeting.