California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Guillen, 25 Cal.App.4th 756, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 (Cal. App. 1994):
In accordance with this instruction, appellant's conviction of possession of cocaine for sale could have been based on the jurors' unanimous agreement that he possessed for sale the cocaine found in the black pouch, or in the sewing machine. Either was a sufficient basis for conviction on count 1. The jury's inability to reach a decision as to the weight enhancement reflected its inability to reach a unanimous decision as to whether appellant possessed the 17 kilos of cocaine found in the garage. The jury did not resolve that factual question; hence the collateral estoppel aspect of the double jeopardy clause is not implicated, and litigation of that issue is not barred. (See Schiro v. Farley,
Page 658
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.