defendant offered the same defense in California

2026(See, e.g., People v. Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 [where “the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered,’ failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless error”]; People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853 [“[w]here the record indicates the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defendant and therefore would have convicted him of any of the various offenses shown by the evidence, the failure to give the unanimity instruction is harmless”].) DISPOSITION The

2026(See People v. Arevalo–Iraheta (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1589 [‘the omission of a unanimity instruction [is] harmless if the record reveals “no rational basis ... by which the jury could have distinguished between [the acts which would constitute the offenses]” ’].)” (Lueth, at p. 196.) Stated another way, the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless “where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts, and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered.’ ” (Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) Here, J.I. testified to being sl

2026(See, e.g., People v. Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 [where “the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered,’ failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless error”]; People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853 [“[w]here the record indicates the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defendant and therefore would have convicted him of any of the various offenses shown by the evidence, the failure to give the unanimity instruction is harmless”].) DISPOSITION The

2025For example, the jury could have found S.S. credible about being punched but not about being hit with the glass jar, or vice versa.” Again, we are not persuaded. 6 In People v. Leuth, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 189 , the Court of Appeal observed that the “ ‘continuous-course-of-conduct exception’ . . . is a catch-all 8 Cal.App.5th 730, 738 [failure to give unanimity instruction harmless where “victim’s testimony, once credited by the jury, necessarily establishe[d]” that defendant committed two offenses and defendant “identifie[d] no basis on which a rational juror could conclude that she was bein

2015(See People v. Matute (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1437 , 1448–1449 [noting that "[s]ome cases hold that the ensuing conviction must be overturned unless the constitutional error can be demonstrated to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas "[o]ther cases find appropriate the test [is] . . . 21 instruction is harmless "[w]here the record provides no rational basis, by way of argument or evidence, for the jury to distinguish between the various acts, and the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed all acts if he [or she] committed any." (People v. Thompson

2015(See People v. Matute (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1437 , 1448–1449 [noting that "[s]ome cases hold that the ensuing conviction must be overturned unless the constitutional error can be demonstrated to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas "[o]ther cases find appropriate the test [is] . . . 21 instruction is harmless "[w]here the record provides no rational basis, by way of argument or evidence, for the jury to distinguish between the various acts, and the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed all acts if he [or she] committed any." (People v. Thompson

2026(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 93 .) A unanimity instruction is not required “if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed the defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other [act.]’ ” (Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 879 ; see also Jennings, at p. 679.) Stated differently, a unanimity instruction is not required “when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish

2021Thus, “the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other, or because ‘there was no evidence . . . from which the jury could have found defendant was guilty of’ the crime based on one act 48 but not the other.” ( Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 879– 880, quoting People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 562 ; see also People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 [unanimity instruction was not required on the robbery charge because the defense as to each act

2026(People v. Wolfe (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 177 , 186–188 (Wolfe).) Error in failing to give a unanimity instruction is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts, and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered.’ ” (People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 577 .) In this case, the jury was presented with evidence that Freeman committed forcible lewd acts against M during a short period of time in the car.

2025(People v. Wolfe (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 177 , 186–188 [we must reverse the judgment based on the failure to give a unanimity instruction unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt].) Error in failing to give a unanimity instruction is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts, and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered.’ ” (Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) The error is also harmless if the jury reasonably could not disbelieve that the defendant committed one criminal act,

2024Where, as here, “the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered,’ failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless error.’ ” (People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 577 ; accord, People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 307 ; People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853 [where “record indicates the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defendant and therefore would have convicted him of any of the various offenses shown by the evidence, the failure to give the unanimity

2014(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; People v. Gary (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1218 .) "Where the record provides no rational basis, by way of argument or evidence, for the jury to distinguish between the various acts, and the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed all acts if he committed any, the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless." (People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853 .) "For example, where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts, and 'the jury's verdict implies that it did not believe the onl

2026(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 93 .) A unanimity instruction is not required “if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed the defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other [act.]’ ” (Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 879 ; see also Jennings, at p. 679.) Stated differently, a unanimity instruction is not required “when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish

2025A unanimity instruction “is not required if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other, or because “ ‘ “there was no evidence from which the jury could have found defendant was guilty of” the crime based on one act but not the other.’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 879 ; accord People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Where a juror could have reasonable doubt about the latter of two crimes charged in a single count, no unanimi

2024(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 .) “Under Chapman, [the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless] ‘[w]here the record provides no rational basis, by way of argument or evidence, for the jury to distinguish between the various acts, and the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant committed all acts if he committed any, the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless.’ [Citation.] For example, where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offere

2016“The failure to provide a unanimity instruction is subject to the Chapman [v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman)] harmless error analysis on appeal. [Fn. omitted.] [Citation.]” (People v. Curry, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 783 .) “Under Chapman, . . . „[w]here the record provides no rational basis, by way of argument or evidence, for the jury to distinguish between the various acts, and the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant committed all acts if he committed any, the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless.‟ [Citation.] For example, where

2020(See People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506 , 561–562 [noting split of authority on the proper standard for reviewing failure to instruct on unanimity].) Under the 10 heightened Chapman standard, error is harmless when “the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts[,] and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered.’ ” (People v Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) Where, as here, the sole defense is a challenge to the victim’s credibility, the error is harmless when “ ‘the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defe

2016(See People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506 , 561–562 [noting split of authority on the proper standard for reviewing failure to instruct on unanimity].) Error in failing to give a unanimity instruction is harmless under Chapman when “the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts, and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered.’ ” (Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) When the sole defense is credibility, the error is harmless when “ ‘the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defendant and therefore would have conv

2026(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 93 .) A unanimity instruction is not required “if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed the defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other [act.]’ ” (Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 879 ; see also Jennings, at p. 679.) Stated differently, a unanimity instruction is not required “when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish

2025A unanimity instruction “is not required if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other, or because “ ‘ “there was no evidence from which the jury could have found defendant was guilty of” the crime based on one act but not the other.’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 879 ; accord People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Where a juror could have reasonable doubt about the latter of two crimes charged in a single count, no unanimi

2026(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 93 .) A unanimity instruction is not required “if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed the defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other [act.]’ ” (Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 879 ; see also Jennings, at p. 679.) Stated differently, a unanimity instruction is not required “when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish

2026(See People v. Arevalo–Iraheta (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1589 [‘the omission of a unanimity instruction [is] harmless if the record reveals “no rational basis ... by which the jury could have distinguished between [the acts which would constitute the offenses]” ’].)” (Lueth, at p. 196.) Stated another way, the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless “where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts, and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered.’ ” (Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 .) Here, J.I. testified to being sl

2026(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 93 .) A unanimity instruction is not required “if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed the defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other [act.]’ ” (Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 879 ; see also Jennings, at p. 679.) Stated differently, a unanimity instruction is not required “when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish

2022(People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 879 (Covarrubias) [“a unanimity instruction is not required if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other”]; Dieguez, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [unanimity instruction not required when acts alleged are “so closely connected as to form part of one continuing transaction or course of criminal conduct” and “ ‘the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonab

2022(People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 879 (Covarrubias) [“a unanimity instruction is not required if ‘the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other”]; Dieguez, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 [unanimity instruction not required when acts alleged are “so closely connected as to form part of one continuing transaction or course of criminal conduct” and “ ‘the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonab

2014(See People v. Wolfe (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 177 , 185–186; compare People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1536 [applying harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard] with People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506, 561-562 [applying no reasonable probability of prejudice standard].) Under Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 , “where the defendant offered the same defense to all criminal acts and ‘the jury’s verdict implies that it did not believe the only defense offered,’ failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless error. [Citation.] … The error is also harmless ‘[w]here

2013We adhere to the majority rule that the Chapman test is 10. 189 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1218 ; People v. Metheney (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 555, 563-564, fn. 5 .) Under Chapman, “[w]here the record provides no rational basis, by way of argument or evidence, for the jury to distinguish between the various acts, and the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed all acts if he committed any, the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless.” (People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853 (Thompson).) For instance, “where the defendant offered the same defense to a