Is a jury required to give a unanimity instruction in a robbery case where there are multiple items of property allegedly stolen?

"[A] unanimity instruction is not required if 'the defendant offered the same defense to both acts constituting the charged crime, so no juror could have believed defendant committed one act but disbelieved that he committed the other, or because "there was no evidence . . . from which the jury could have found defendant was guilty of" the crime based on one act but not the other.' " (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 879 [no unanimity instruction required for robbery charge predicated on multiple items of property allegedly taken].) Some cases reach the same result, i.e., upholding the failure to instruct on unanimity, through a harmless error analysis. (See People v. Shultz (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 535, 539 [discussing the analytical dichotomy].) For example, where the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of the charged offense by means of every act in question, the failure to give a unanimity instruction, assuming one would have been appropriate, is not

Page 4

prejudicial. (See People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100.) Regardless of which analytic lens we apply, i.e., that of no error or no prejudice, the failure here to give a unanimity instruction is not reversible.