jury a unanimity instruction in California

2022She told the jury: “[D]efendant is charged with assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury as against Jane Doe for punching her during that [October 6] incident, causing injury.” (Italics added.) “The alternative to giving the jury a unanimity instruction is for the prosecution to elect a single act for each charge.” (People v. Diaz (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1375, 1381 .) When a prosecutor clearly informs the jury in argument of the specific act that she is relying on to prove a specific count, no 8 unanimity instruction is required as to that count.

2020(People v. Diaz (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1375, 1382 ; accord, People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1292 ; People v. Mayer (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 403, 418-419 ; People v. Hawkins (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1455 .) In the absence of a prosecutor’s election, a trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the jury a unanimity instruction where a single crime could be based on several possible acts.

2020(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 280-281 ; see People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 874-875 [“‘[a]s long as there are multiple acts presented to the jury which could constitute the charged offense, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on unanimity’”]; People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 [“if the prosecution shows several acts, each of which could constitute a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required”].) “‘In deciding whether to give the instruction, the trial court must ask whether (1) there is a risk the jury may divide on two discrete crimes and

2020(People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 (Russo); People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 (Diedrich).) A unanimous verdict, in criminal cases, aims to “‘eliminate the danger that the defendant will be convicted even though there is no single offense which all the jurors agree the defendant committed.’” (Russo, at p. 1132, quoting People v. Sutherland (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 602, 612 .) Thus, a trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the jury a unanimity instruction where a single crime could be based upon one of several possible acts.

2020(Diedrich, at pp. 280-282; see People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215-217 [explaining the decisional history regarding the need for a unanimity instruction].) “‘We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195 (Lueth).) 2 CALCRIM No. 3500 provides: “The defendant is charged with ___ < insert description of alleged offense > [in Count ___] [sometime during the period of ___ to ____]. [¶] The People have presented evidence of more than one ac

2013We rejected that argument, holding that “[U]nder established California law, no unanimity instruction is required to prevent a less than unanimous verdict where the evidence independently proves acts which support defendant’s liability either as a 13 principal or as and aider and abettor.” (Id. at p. 617; see also to the same general effect, People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195-199 .) In his briefs to us, appellant cites several cases where the appellate court found error in the failure to give the jury a unanimity instruction, but all of them are easily distinguishable.

1988Appellant’s Contention Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct 3 the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying act forming the basis of a finding of guilty. *826 Discussion Appellant contends that the trial court should have given the jury a unanimity instruction. 4 The purpose behind a unanimity instruction is that: “when the accusatory pleading charges a single criminal act and the evidence shows more than one such unlawful act, either the prosecution must select the specific act relied upon to prove the charge or the jury must be instructed in the wo

1988Appellant’s Contention Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct 3 the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying act forming the basis of a finding of guilty. *826 Discussion Appellant contends that the trial court should have given the jury a unanimity instruction. 4 The purpose behind a unanimity instruction is that: “when the accusatory pleading charges a single criminal act and the evidence shows more than one such unlawful act, either the prosecution must select the specific act relied upon to prove the charge or the jury must be instructed in the wo

2025(People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) If a defendant 4 is charged with one crime but the evidence suggests more than one criminal act, either (1) the prosecution must elect the crime on which it relies or (2) the court must give the jury a unanimity instruction requiring them to agree on one act for which the defendant is culpable.

2020(People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 (Russo); People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 (Diedrich).) A unanimous verdict, in criminal cases, aims to “‘eliminate the danger that the defendant will be convicted even though there is no single offense which all the jurors agree the defendant committed.’” (Russo, at p. 1132, quoting People v. Sutherland (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 602, 612 .) Thus, a trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the jury a unanimity instruction where a single crime could be based upon one of several possible acts.

2014(People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 .) The alternative to giving the jury a unanimity instruction, however, is for the prosecution to elect a single act for each charge.

2013(People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 .) The alternative to giving the jury a unanimity instruction, however, is for the prosecution to elect a single act for each charge.

2022(People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1292 .) Here, the prosecutor made a clear election as to count 3, so no unanimity instruction was required as to that count.

2020(People v. Diaz (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1375, 1382 ; accord, People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1292 ; People v. Mayer (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 403, 418-419 ; People v. Hawkins (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1455 .) In the absence of a prosecutor’s election, a trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the jury a unanimity instruction where a single crime could be based on several possible acts.

2020(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 280-281 ; see People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 874-875 [“‘[a]s long as there are multiple acts presented to the jury which could constitute the charged offense, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on unanimity’”]; People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 [“if the prosecution shows several acts, each of which could constitute a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required”].) “‘In deciding whether to give the instruction, the trial court must ask whether (1) there is a risk the jury may divide on two discrete crimes and

2010Defendant's actions in resisting, first at her desk, then at the doorway, and then at the stairwell were "so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction." ( People v. Crandell, supra , 46 Cal.3d at p. 875 ; People v. Stankewitz, supra , 51 Cal.3d at p. 100 ; People v. McIntyre, supra , 115 Cal.App.3d at pp. 908-911 .) Accordingly, the trial court properly did not give the jury a unanimity instruction.

2020(Diedrich, at pp. 280-282; see People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215-217 [explaining the decisional history regarding the need for a unanimity instruction].) “‘We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195 (Lueth).) 2 CALCRIM No. 3500 provides: “The defendant is charged with ___ < insert description of alleged offense > [in Count ___] [sometime during the period of ___ to ____]. [¶] The People have presented evidence of more than one ac

2013Harmless Error Even assuming that the trial court should have given the jury a unanimity instruction as to the false imprisonment charge, any error was harmless under the circumstances, whether assessed under the standard for constitutional violations (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman)) or the standard for state law error (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson)).

2013(See People v. Wolfe (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 177, 185-186 (Wolfe) [noting split in authority].) ―The erroneous failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless if disagreement among the jurors concerning the different specific acts proved is not reasonably possible.‖ (People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 119 , fn. omitted.) ―[S]uch 9 disagreement is unlikely [when] the true issue in the case was a single credibility dispute.‖ (Id. at p. 120.) Here, defendant ―presented a unitary defense‖ with respect to all of the acts that could have constituted the false imprisonment charge.

2013Harmless Error Even assuming that the trial court should have given the jury a unanimity instruction as to the false imprisonment charge, any error was harmless under the circumstances, whether assessed under the standard for constitutional violations (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman)) or the standard for state law error (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson)).

1987(People v. Alva (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 418, 426 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 644 ].) The alternative to giving the jury a unanimity instruction is for the prosecution to elect a single act for each charge.

1987(People v. Alva (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 418, 426 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 644 ].) The alternative to giving the jury a unanimity instruction is for the prosecution to elect a single act for each charge.