§ 13A-5^t0(a)(5) states only one offense (the capital murder of a law enforcement officer) and states two alternative theories (“while [the] officer ... is on duty” or “because of some official or job-related act”) on which the jury may base its conviction. Thus, the State argues, the trial court did not err in refusing to require it to elect which count would go to the jury. We agree. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial guarantees a defendant the right to a unanimous verdict in a federal trial. Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948). However, the Supreme Court has held that, at 26 Kan. 308, 597 P.2d 1108 (1979); Commonwealth v. Devlin, 335 Mass. 555, 565-68, 141 N.E.2d 269, 274-76 (1957) (<HOLDING>); People v. Embree, 70 Mich.App. 382, 384, 246
holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source holding a complaint sufficiently raises a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to the wrong legal theory as a basis for that claim holding previous homicide conviction does not become element of murder merely because sentencing enhancement will apply based on previous conviction holding that a homicide conviction is acceptable even if the jury does not specify a theory