defendant tenders the same defense in California

2026(E.g., People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 [“The unanimity instruction is not required when the acts alleged are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.”]; see also People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 196 .) In Jennings, however, the Supreme Court identified the “continuous-course-of-conduct exception” and the “same-defense except

2025It applies when “(1) ‘the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’; (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act’; and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) ‘This exception “ ‘is meant to apply not to all crimes occurring during a single transaction but only to those “where the acts testified to are so closely related in time and place that the jurors reasonably must either accept or reject the victim’s testimony in toto.” [Citation.]’ [Ci

2026(E.g., People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 [“The unanimity instruction is not required when the acts alleged are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.”]; see also People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 196 .) In Jennings, however, the Supreme Court identified the “continuous-course-of-conduct exception” and the “same-defense except

2025It applies when “(1) ‘the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’; (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act’; and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) ‘This exception “ ‘is meant to apply not to all crimes occurring during a single transaction but only to those “where the acts testified to are so closely related in time and place that the jurors reasonably must either accept or reject the victim’s testimony in toto.” [Citation.]’ [Ci

2025It applies when “(1) ‘the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’; (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act’; and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) ‘This exception “ ‘is meant to apply not to all crimes occurring during a single transaction but only to those “where the acts testified to are so closely related in time and place that the jurors reasonably must either accept or reject the victim’s testimony in toto.” [Citation.]’ [Ci

2020(Ibid.; Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 281-282.) The first is when “‘the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jenkins, at p. 299; Diedrich, at p. 282 [citing examples of pandering, child abuse, bribery, and contributing to delinquency].) The second is “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely 6 connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citatio

2025It applies when “(1) ‘the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’; (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act’; and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) ‘This exception “ ‘is meant to apply not to all crimes occurring during a single transaction but only to those “where the acts testified to are so closely related in time and place that the jurors reasonably must either accept or reject the victim’s testimony in toto.” [Citation.]’ [Ci

2020(Ibid.; Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 281-282.) The first is when “‘the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jenkins, at p. 299; Diedrich, at p. 282 [citing examples of pandering, child abuse, bribery, and contributing to delinquency].) The second is “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely 6 connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citatio

2023(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 423 .) This occurs when, among other times, “ ‘the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense.’ ” (People v. Napoles, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 115 .) In that circumstance, this exception applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act closely connected in time and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.

2013(See generally People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1024-1026 .).” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “ ‘[T]he unanimity instruction is not required when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the “continuous conduct” exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 ; see also People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 423 .)” (Peopl

2022(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; accord People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100 .) “This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 , disapproved on a different point in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364 ; see also People v. Datt (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 942, 951 [multiple acts during 18-minute period were part of same transaction].) “ ‘[W]here the a

2020(Ibid.; Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 281-282.) The first is when “‘the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jenkins, at p. 299; Diedrich, at p. 282 [citing examples of pandering, child abuse, bribery, and contributing to delinquency].) The second is “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely 6 connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citatio

2020(People v. Mota (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 227 , 233–234 [repeated and continuous rape]; see also People v. Deletto (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 458, 469 [two acts of oral copulation performed in different ways]; People v. Gonzalez (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 786, 792 [two rapes committed “within minutes” of each other]; People v. McIntyre (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 899, 910 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Adams (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 75, 80 [two acts of oral copulation “within a matter of minutes”].) The exception applies here.

1988(See People v. Parsons (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1165, 1174 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 412 ]; People v. Deletto (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 458, 469 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 233 ].) We need not decide in this case whether the self-defense evidence was sufficiently different as to each act, and of sufficient weight, to mandate the instruction on unanimity.

2020(People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) 9 Where “the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (Ibid.) However, an exception to the unanimity rule applies when the defendant tenders the same defense as to each act “and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.” (People v. Crandall (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) The exception—which applies when “ ‘ “acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction”

2013(See, e.g., People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) The exception applies, for example, “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’” (People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 196 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], quoting People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) This particular branch of the continuous-course-of-conduct exception—we will call it the single transaction branch—“‘

2026(E.g., People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 [“The unanimity instruction is not required when the acts alleged are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.”]; see also People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 196 .) In Jennings, however, the Supreme Court identified the “continuous-course-of-conduct exception” and the “same-defense except

2022The continuous-course-of-conduct exception “arises ‘when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction.’” (People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 , quoting People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 .) The same-defense exception arises when “the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various 9 acts constituting the charged crime.” (People v. Jennings, supra, at p. 679 .) Defendant argues that neither of these exceptions applies. “[T]he continuous-course-of-conduct exception applies when (1) ‘the acts are so closely connected in time as to

2022(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; accord People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100 .) “This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 , disapproved on a different point in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364 ; see also People v. Datt (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 942, 951 [multiple acts during 18-minute period were part of same transaction].) “ ‘[W]here the a

2020A trial court has a sua sponte duty to give such an instruction “ ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 .) In making this determination, “the trial court must ask whether (1) there is a risk the jury may divide on two discrete crimes and not agree on any particular crime, or (2) the evidence merely presents the possibility the jury may divide, or be uncertain, as to the exact way the 11 A unanimity instruction also is not required “when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.

2023(People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 , abrogated on another ground in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364-365 ; People v. Datt, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 951 .) The court in Datt ruled that this exception applied to its facts, and we agree the exception applies here.

2022(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; accord People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100 .) “This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 , disapproved on a different point in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364 ; see also People v. Datt (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 942, 951 [multiple acts during 18-minute period were part of same transaction].) “ ‘[W]here the a

2022(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 ; accord People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100 .) “This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 , disapproved on a different point in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364 ; see also People v. Datt (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 942, 951 [multiple acts during 18-minute period were part of same transaction].) “ ‘[W]here the a

2020(Ibid.; Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 281-282.) The first is when “‘the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jenkins, at p. 299; Diedrich, at p. 282 [citing examples of pandering, child abuse, bribery, and contributing to delinquency].) The second is “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely 6 connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citatio

2020(Ibid.; Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 281-282.) The first is when “‘the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jenkins, at p. 299; Diedrich, at p. 282 [citing examples of pandering, child abuse, bribery, and contributing to delinquency].) The second is “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely 6 connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citatio

1988(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 354 , 643 P.2d 971 ]; People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 516 ]; People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658, 681 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 614 ].) This branch of the “continuous conduct” exception (People v. Diedrich, supra, at pp. 281-282 ) applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.

2026(E.g., People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 [“The unanimity instruction is not required when the acts alleged are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.”]; see also People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 196 .) In Jennings, however, the Supreme Court identified the “continuous-course-of-conduct exception” and the “same-defense except

2026(E.g., People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 [“The unanimity instruction is not required when the acts alleged are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous conduct’ exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them.”]; see also People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 196 .) In Jennings, however, the Supreme Court identified the “continuous-course-of-conduct exception” and the “same-defense except

2020(See, e.g., People v. Matute (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1448 [noting conflicting authorities].) The majority of the courts that have addressed the issue have applied Chapman.

2020(Ibid.; Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 281-282.) The first is when “‘the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jenkins, at p. 299; Diedrich, at p. 282 [citing examples of pandering, child abuse, bribery, and contributing to delinquency].) The second is “when (1) ‘the acts are so closely 6 connected in time as to form part of one transaction,’ (2) ‘the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act,’ and (3) ‘there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citatio

2020(People v. Mota (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 227 , 233–234 [repeated and continuous rape]; see also People v. Deletto (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 458, 469 [two acts of oral copulation performed in different ways]; People v. Gonzalez (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 786, 792 [two rapes committed “within minutes” of each other]; People v. McIntyre (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 899, 910 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Adams (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 75, 80 [two acts of oral copulation “within a matter of minutes”].) The exception applies here.

2020(People v. Mota (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 227 , 233–234 [repeated and continuous rape]; see also People v. Deletto (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 458, 469 [two acts of oral copulation performed in different ways]; People v. Gonzalez (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 786, 792 [two rapes committed “within minutes” of each other]; People v. McIntyre (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 899, 910 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Adams (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 75, 80 [two acts of oral copulation “within a matter of minutes”].) The exception applies here.

2013(See generally People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1024-1026 .).” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “ ‘[T]he unanimity instruction is not required when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the “continuous conduct” exception [citation] applies if the defendant tenders the same defense or defenses to each act and if there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them. [Citations.]’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 ; see also People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 423 .)” (Peopl

2011Additionally, the jury must agree unanimously the defendant is guilty of a specific crime. [Citation.] Therefore, cases have long held that when the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act. [Citations.]” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 , 25 P.3d 641 ].) However, “[t]he unanimity instruction is not required when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous c

2011Additionally, the jury must agree unanimously the defendant is guilty of a specific crime. [Citation.] Therefore, cases have long held that when the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act. [Citations.]” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 , 25 P.3d 641 ].) However, “[t]he unanimity instruction is not required when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] This branch of the ‘continuous c