Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Danielgreen2 sentences2026In addition, the prosecution argued the taking of the various items were prompted by the same motive: “the defendant was at the end of his job.” (See People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 168, 175 [unanimity instruction not required for a grand theft by embezzlement charge because “[t]he charge alleged that the appellant engaged in a continuous course of conduct of theft from a single victim over a period of five months with a single fraudulent intent or objective”].) Recognizing that the continuing course of conduct exception is “quite limited” (People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 21 2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 .) The cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, "when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense." (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct "with a single fraudulent intent." (People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.Ap | 3 | 3 |
People v. Howesgreen2 sentences2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 .) The cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, "when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense." (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct "with a single fraudulent intent." (People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.Ap 2015(People v. Sanchez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 622, 632 .) Instead, the cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a second subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, “when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense. [Citation.]” (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct “with a single fraudulent intent.” (Pe | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ewinggreen2 sentences2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2015(People v. Sanchez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 622, 632 .) Instead, the cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a second subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, “when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense. [Citation.]” (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct “with a single fraudulent intent.” (Pe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Napolesgreen2 sentences2005(Cf. People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 116 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 ].) C. 2005(Cf. People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 116 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 ].) C. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lowellgreen2 sentences2002(People v. Lowell (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 341, 345 [ 175 P.2d 846 , 77 A.L.R.2d 907 ].) While the parties do not address the issue, we are unaware of any case holding that animal abuse, as defined in section 597, subdivision (b) is a continuing offense. 2002(People v. Lowell (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 341, 345 [ 175 P.2d 846 , 77 A.L.R.2d 907 ].) While the parties do not address the issue, we are unaware of any case holding that animal abuse, as defined in section 597, subdivision (b) is a continuing offense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Goldsteingreen2 sentences1996(People v. Goldstein (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1040 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].) The continuing course of conduct exception applies when the acts are so closely connected that they form one and the same transaction and, thus, the same offense. 1996(People v. Goldstein (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1040 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].) The continuing course of conduct exception applies when the acts are so closely connected that they form one and the same transaction and, thus, the same offense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1996(People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 516 ].) Here, Latina testified to two separate molestations on the second day, broken in time by the intervening act of running to the bathroom and then being dragged back to the living room. 1996(People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 516 ].) Here, Latina testified to two separate molestations on the second day, broken in time by the intervening act of running to the bathroom and then being dragged back to the living room. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Russo
green
2 sentences2026The jury found that Vallarta committed a single offense of taking items aggregating to more than $950; it did not amalgamate “evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [Vallarta] must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) In addition, even if Vallarta’s act of taking various items from Avila constitutes more than one act, the continuing course of conduct exception applies. 2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. | 2 | 2002–2026 |
People v. Gunn
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 .) The cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, "when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense." (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct "with a single fraudulent intent." (People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.Ap 2015(People v. Sanchez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 622, 632 .) Instead, the cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a second subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, “when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense. [Citation.]” (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct “with a single fraudulent intent.” (Pe | 2 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Madden
green
1 sentence2026In addition, the prosecution argued the taking of the various items were prompted by the same motive: “the defendant was at the end of his job.” (See People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 168, 175 [unanimity instruction not required for a grand theft by embezzlement charge because “[t]he charge alleged that the appellant engaged in a continuous course of conduct of theft from a single victim over a period of five months with a single fraudulent intent or objective”].) Recognizing that the continuing course of conduct exception is “quite limited” (People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 21 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Jennings
green
1 sentence2026This exception “arises ‘when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’ [citation], or ‘when . . . the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time’ [citation].” (Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 679 .) Vallarta’s taking of the items from the Clay Street properties occurred in a single afternoon. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Zavala
green
1 sentence2025“Because [Murray] was charged with a ‘course of conduct’ offense occurring over a period of time, we conclude that the continuing course of conduct doctrine applies and, therefore, no unanimity instruction was required.” (Zavala, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 769 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
The People v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2022While a unanimity instruction is necessary if the acts are “separated by 15 time and space” (Hernandez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 574 ), there was no such separation here because the acts took place for count 3 while defendant was in D.A.C.’s apartment on August 20, 2015, and for count 6 while defendant was in D.A.C.’s apartment continuously on August 21 to August 22, 2015. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Diedrich
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 .) The cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, "when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense." (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct "with a single fraudulent intent." (People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.Ap | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Sanchez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 622, 632 .) Instead, the cases considering the necessity of a unanimity instruction for embezzlement and similar offenses have looked to whether the facts of that particular case fall within a second subset of the continuing course of conduct exception, “when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense. [Citation.]” (Gunn, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 412 .) In applying this exception, courts often assess whether defendant engaged in a course of conduct “with a single fraudulent intent.” (Pe | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Vargas
green
1 sentence2005(People v. Vargas, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d 1455 .) The statutory offense here is self-defined to require a course of conduct. (§ 646.9, subd. (e) [“ ‘harasses’ means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct”].) Because Zavala was charged with a “course of conduct” offense occurring over a period of time, we conclude that the continuing course of conduct doctrine applies and, therefore, no unanimity instruction was required. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Avina
green
1 sentence2002(People v. Russo, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1135 .) The second category of offenses falling into the continuing course of conduct exception has been applied to a limited number of crimes including *632 failure to provide for a minor child (People v. Morrison (1921) 54 Cal.App. 469, 471 [ 202 P. 348 ]), annoying or molesting a child (People v. Moore (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1015 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]), child abuse (People v. Ewing (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 714, 717 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 299 ]; People v. Avina, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1311 ), and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.