In what circumstances will a defendant be found guilty of resisting arrest under section 69 of the California Criminal Code?

We find further support for our decision in People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, where the court found that "if [the defendant] resisted the officers at all, he did so forcefully, thereby ensuring no reasonable jury could have concluded he violated section 148, subdivision (a)(1) but not section 69." The witnesses testified the defendant "had to be physically taken to the ground by [a detective] because he refused to comply with . . . repeated orders to remove his hand from his duffle bag." (Id. at p. 985.) In addition, the defendant "failed to comply with several officers' repeated orders to relax" and "to 'stop resisting,'" and "continued to struggle" with several officers. (Id. at pp. 985-986.) The defendant "continued to squirm" and refuse to surrender his right hand until he was pepper sprayed. (Id. at p. 986.) The court concluded "the jury would have had no rational basis to conclude [the defendant] wrestled with the officers, for which they convicted him of resisting or delaying an officer, but the struggle did not involve force or violence . . . ." (Ibid.; see also People v. Bernal (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 512, 519 [violation of section 69 "need not involve any force or violence directed toward the person of an executive officer"; "[the] force used by a defendant in resisting an officer's attempt to restrain and arrest the defendant is sufficient to support a conviction." (Italics deleted.)].) In line with these authorities, we reject appellant's contention that giving the lesser included offense instruction was required.

C. Failure to Give Unanimity Instruction Sua Sponte

1. Background