in noncapital cases, neither the Sixth Amendment nor. the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a unanimous jury verdict in a state trial. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972). In Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 629, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991), a plurality of the Supreme Court avoided extending the federal unanimity requirement to a state capital defendant, by concluding that even if the unanimity requirement applied it would not provide relief to the defendant. The defendant in Schad, 501 U.S. at 628, 111 S.Ct. 2491, was indicted by a state grand jury for capital murder, which the relevant statute def 1, 936 (1976) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by State v. Quick,
holding that the jury need agree only that the defendant committed firstdegree murder not on the theory by which it reached the verdict holding that the accused cannot impeach a verdict on the basis that the jury could not agree on the theory of firstdegree murder holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory