California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Young, G046395 (Cal. App. 2013):
In a criminal case, the constitutional right to jury unanimity requires that when a defendant is charged with a single criminal act and the evidence shows more than one such act, either the prosecution must select the specific act relied upon to prove the charge, or the jury must be instructed that it must agree unanimously that defendant committed the same act. (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132.)
"The unanimity instruction is not required when the acts alleged are so closely connected as to form part of one transaction. [Citations.] Th[is] 'continuous conduct' rule [also] applies when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them." (People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100.) Thus, the question becomes whether the evidence suggested two discrete crimes, i.e., two discrete criminal threats concerning Dady, or merely possible uncertainty on how Young is guilty of count 1. We conclude it is the latter.
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.