What is the legal test for a jury to convict appellants of a crime with which they were charged with entering into an illegal agreement to violate various state laws?

The one and only crime with which appellants were charged was conspiracy. (See Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 54, 63 S.Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942).) If the jury found appellants entered into the illegal agreement and the jury unanimously agreed that one of them committed any one of the specified overt acts even though a separate crime was thereby shown to have also been committed, there could remain in the mind of the jury no 'doubt as to the legal effect of the facts proved' so as to justify rendition of a special verdict. The only 'legal effect of the facts proved' would be that appellants were guilty of conspiracy as charged. On the other hand, if the jury did not find entry into the unlawful agreement plus the overt act, the only 'legal effect of the facts proved' would be that appellants were not guilty of conspiracy.

The jury was properly instructed that appellants were charged with entry into an unlawful agreement to violate various state laws and to commit acts injurious to the public health, followed by certain overt acts in furtherance of the [253 Cal.App.2d 158] agreement; that proof of the conspiracy to violate one or more of the laws specified in the indictment would support a conviction; that before a particular defendant could be convicted there had to be unanimous jury agreement as to which particular law such defendant conspired to violate; that before other defendants could be found guilty there had to be unanimous jury agreement that all the defendants found guilty conspired to violate the same law; that before a defendant could be found guilty of the charge of conspiracy, at least one of the overt acts specified in the indictment had to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and that such overt act must be unanimously agreed upon as to such defendant by all twelve of the jury. They were also instructed on the applicable provisions of each of the laws mentioned in the indictment. The jury having been fully and properly instructed in this connection (See People v. Mason, supra, 184 Cal.App.2d 317, 370, 7 Cal.Rptr. 627), a general verdict was mandatory under Penal Code section 1150.