defendant offers the same defense in California

2026It would 14 connected in time as to form part of one transaction’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 ), or ‘when . . . the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct or a series of acts over a period of time.’ (People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 .) There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.

2025For example, no unanimity instruction is required if the case falls within the continuous- course-of-conduct exception, which arises ‘when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 ), or ‘when . . . the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct or a series of acts over a period of time.’ (People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 .) There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.

2026It would 14 connected in time as to form part of one transaction’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 ), or ‘when . . . the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct or a series of acts over a period of time.’ (People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 .) There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.

2025For example, no unanimity instruction is required if the case falls within the continuous- course-of-conduct exception, which arises ‘when the acts are so closely connected in time as to form part of one transaction’ (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 ), or ‘when . . . the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct or a series of acts over a period of time.’ (People v. Thompson (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 220, 224 .) There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.

2022There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Relying on People v. Salvato (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 872, 883 , defendant argues that the exception for a continuous course of conduct is inapplicable to criminal threats prohibited by section 422.

2021There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Relying on People v. Salvato (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 872, 883 , defendant argues that the exception for a continuous course of conduct is inapplicable to criminal threats prohibited by section 422.

2026(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 283 ; People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 577 (Hernandez).) The error is also 7 harmless “‘[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. . . .’” (Hernandez, at p. 577.) Here, the failure to give a unanimity instruction was harmless error because Hernandez offered a single defense to the rape and gun enhancement, that is, he denied he raped Jane Doe.

2013(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 283 .) However, failure to give a unanimity instruction is also harmless “if the record indicated the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against the defendant and would have convicted the defendant of any of the various offenses shown by the evidence .…” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 307 .) The basic credibility dispute here pitted Vanessa’s account of events according to Officer Richards’s testimony against her account of events according to her own testimony.

2019For example, no 7 unanimity instruction is required if the case falls within the continuous-course-of-conduct exception, which 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.] There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Here, no unanimity instruction was re

2019For example, no 7 unanimity instruction is required if the case falls within the continuous-course-of-conduct exception, which 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.] There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Here, no unanimity instruction was re

2015(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 682 .) The "continuous conduct" rule applies when the defendant offers the same defense to each of the acts and there is no reasonable basis to distinguish between them.

2015(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 682 .) The "continuous conduct" rule applies when the defendant offers the same defense to each of the acts and there is no reasonable basis to distinguish between them.

2026(People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195 .) 2.

2025The first is when the acts are so closely connected that they form part of one and the same transaction, and thus one offense. [Citation.] The second is when ... the statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of acts over a period of time.” ’ ” (People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 115 .) “There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) “The justification for the exception is that there is no need for an inst

2025There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime. [Citation.]” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) “ ‘It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the 69 evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understand

2022(People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853 .) Therefore, “the jury must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed all acts if he committed any, [so] the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless.” (Ibid) 15.

2021(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 (Carrera).) “Even absent a request, the court should give the instruction ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 .) Appellate courts review de novo whether the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction.

2021Thus, there is no reason to believe that the verdict was not unanimous.” (People v. Leffel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 575, 587 ; see People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 [“There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime”].) B.

2021Failure to Provide a “McMakin Instruction” Defendant claims the trial court had a sua sponte duty to give what he calls a “McMakin instruction.” (See People v. McMakin (1857) 8 Cal. 547 (McMakin).) To explain the rather convoluted argument, we must first discuss the applicable law.

2020You must not find the defendant guilty unless you all agree that the People have proved that the defendant committed at least one of these acts and you all agree on which act he committed.” “Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.” (People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 .) Since Landino did not propose a different or additional unanimity instruction, he forfeited any claim of instructional error.

2016(People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534 ; People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) There are several exceptions to this rule, however. ―For example, no unanimity instruction is required if the case falls within the continuous-course-of-conduct exception, which 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 or a series of acts over a period of time.‘ [Citation.] There also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defens

2014(People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “[W]hen 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.]” (Ibid.) A unanimity instruction is not required if the acts were so closely connected in time that they form a single transaction, the defendant offers the same defense to each act, and the jury has no basis to distinguish between them.

2014(People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100 .) In the opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that on January 8, 2013, defendant threatened to kill Reeves.

2013While there was evidence of various factual bases for a jury finding that appellant was evading an officer (Minnick, Delgado) in willful disregard for safety (speeding, running stop signs), "jury unanimity is not required 'as to the exact way the defendant is guilty of a single discrete crime.'" (People v. Datt (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 942, 950 .) Moreover, "[t]here also is no need for a unanimity instruction if the defendant offers the same defense or defenses to the various acts constituting the charged crime." (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 679 .) Here, appellant's defense to both