course of conduct exception in California

2016(Daniel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 175 .) Because each of the individual acts alleged was under $25,000, the "jury must have concluded" that defendant "did indeed engage in a continuous course of conduct." (Ibid.) Courts have reached similar results where several acts of petty theft make up a single charge of grand theft, and the defendant's conviction for grand theft therefore reflects the jury's acceptance of the entire course of conduct exception.

2015(See, e.g., People v. Howes, supra, 99 Cal.App.2d at p. 820 .) Indeed, in Daniel, the court of appeal found that the unanimity instruction should have been given on a second count of grand theft, where the jury found the enhancement allegation to be not true and therefore must have agreed that only one of two alleged takings had been proven.

2015First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.’ [Citation.] ‘The second established principle is that a unanimity instruction is not 18 required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.’ [Citation.] ‘Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimity instruc

2015First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.’ [Citation.] ‘The second established principle is that a unanimity instruction is not 18 required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.’ [Citation.] ‘Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimity instruc

2009Defendant contends that “[e]ven if a statute creates a continuous course of conduct offense, a unanimity instruction is nonetheless required if the evidence offered to prove the offense shows multiple separate and discrete criminal events.” Thus, for example, in People v. Sanchez, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th 622 , a unanimity instruction was required on a charge of animal abuse where that charge was based on “evidence of two separate incidents in which [the] defendant kicked a dog during the period of time charged in the information.” (Id. at p. 634.) Defendant contends this case is like Sanchez “be

2007(Id. at pp. 100-101.) Belcher made it “clear” that the course-of-conduct rule, judicially applied to an “act or omission” within the meaning of section 654, does not apply to section 656. ( Belcher, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 97-98 & fn. 6.) 2 The Supreme Court emphasized that the Candelaria decisions “demonstrate the meaning to be given to the terms ‘act or omission’ as they are used in section 656.” (Belcher, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 99 .) A defendant may not be convicted in this state after a prior acquittal or conviction in another jurisdiction “if all the acts constituting the offense in this

2007California’s Supreme Court has rejected a course-of-conduct rule for application of the prior conviction or acquittal defense. ( Belcher, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 97-98 & fn. 6.) We recognize that Comingore, supra, 20 Cal.3d 142 , appears to provide some support for defendant’s argument.

2007(Id. at pp. 100-101.) Belcher made it “clear” that the course-of-conduct rule, judicially applied to an “act or omission” within the meaning of section 654, does not apply to section 656. ( Belcher, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 97-98 & fn. 6.) 2 The Supreme Court emphasized that the Candelaria decisions “demonstrate the meaning to be given to the terms ‘act or omission’ as they are used in section 656.” (Belcher, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 99 .) A defendant may not be convicted in this state after a prior acquittal or conviction in another jurisdiction “if all the acts constituting the offense in this

2001The majority also adverts to preserving the opportunity for "informal conciliation." (Maj. opn, ante, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 104 , 29 P.3d at p. 189 .) This rationale falls short in several respects.

2001The majority also adverts to preserving the opportunity for "informal conciliation." (Maj. opn, ante, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 104 , 29 P.3d at p. 189 .) This rationale falls short in several respects.

1994First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.” (Id. at p. 1428.) “The second established principle is that a *299 unanimity instruction is not required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.” {Ibid.) “Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1430.) “The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimi

1994First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.” (Id. at p. 1428.) “The second established principle is that a *299 unanimity instruction is not required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.” {Ibid.) “Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1430.) “The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimi

1994First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.” (Id. at p. 1428.) “The second established principle is that a *299 unanimity instruction is not required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.” {Ibid.) “Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1430.) “The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimi

1994First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.” (Id. at p. 1428.) “The second established principle is that a *299 unanimity instruction is not required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.” {Ibid.) “Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1430.) “The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimi

1994First, if the prosecution shows several acts and each act is a separate offense, a unanimity instruction is required.” (Id. at p. 1428.) “The second established principle is that a *299 unanimity instruction is not required when the case falls within the continuous course of conduct exception.” {Ibid.) “Analogous to the single course of conduct exception is the third established principle, that the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 is harmless when disagreement by the jury is not reasonably probable. [Citation.]” {Id. at p. 1430.) “The fourth principle applicable to the question whether unanimi

1990(People v. Burns (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1440, 1458 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 573 ].) In People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 111 P.2d 121 ], joint custodians of money were robbed.

1990(People v. Burns (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1440, 1458 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 573 ].) In People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 111 P.2d 121 ], joint custodians of money were robbed.