Verdicts in a criminal case must be unanimous. Unanimity requires all jurors to agree that the defendant committed the same criminal act. Here, the jury instructions provided by the district court allowed the jury to convict Appellant if he committed either the act of: (1) being under the influence of an intoxicating liquor; or (2) refusing a chemical test requested by law enforcement. Did allowing the jury to convict Appellant without unanimously agreeing Appellant committed a singular criminal act violate Appellant’s right to a unanimous criminal verdict?

1. Whether Tompkins’ failure to submit specific proposed instructions and proposed verdict forms beyond his routine requests for pattern instructions failed to thoroughly preserve his objections for appeal and left his objections to be reviewed for plain error.
2. Whether N.D.C.C. subsection 39-08-01(1)(e) refusal to submit to a chemical test is a separate offense or an alternate means of committing DUI or APC.
3. Whether the jury instructions as a whole correctly and adequately informed the jury of the applicable law, when the trial court did not give separate elements instructions or separate verdict forms for either refusal DUI or refusal APC.