What is the unanimity required for a jury to convict a defendant of murder of the first degree or second degree?

Read together, the instructions properly informed the jury that it did not need to unanimously agree as to which theory supported a guilty verdict for first degree murder, or as to which theory supported a guilty verdict for second degree murder, but it did have to "agree unanimously . . . as to whether [defendant] is guilty of murder of the first degree or murder of the second degree." This is all the unanimity that was required. (See People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 479 ["Premeditated murder and felony murder are not distinct crimes; rather, they are alternative theories of liability, and jurors

Page 12

need not unanimously agree on a particular theory of liability in order to reach a unanimous verdict"]; see also People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1024-1025 ["'It is settled that as long as each juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant is guilty of murder as that offense is defined by statute, it need not decide unanimously by which theory he [or she] is guilty. [Citations.] More specifically, the jury need not decide unanimously whether [the] defendant was guilty as the aider and abettor or as the direct perpetrator. . . . Not only is there no unanimity requirement as to the theory of guilt, the individual jurors themselves need not choose among the theories, so long as each is convinced of guilt'"].)

Nor are we persuaded by defendant's reliance on People v. Sanchez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1012, a case in which the different theories of liability for murder supported "different degrees of murder" and the trial court provided the jury with a response to a jury question that "undermined the notion of unanimity as to degree." (Id. at p. 1025.) As the court explained: "There is no way to determine, on the record presented, whether the jury followed the instruction during deliberations stating unanimity was not required, or the earlier instruction pursuant to CALCRIM No. 640, which set forth a different approach to the verdict forms on both degrees of murder." (Ibid.) Here, none of the instructions undermined the specific instruction that the jury was required to agree unanimously as to the degree of murder. All the challenged instructions did was make clear the jury did not have to unanimously agree as to which theory supported first degree murder or which theory supported second degree murder. In other words, read together, we conclude the jury would have understood the instructions to indicate that as long as the jurors unanimously agreed the prosecution proved these were first degree murders, they did not need to agree as to whether they were premeditated murders or felony murders, or whether defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor; and if

Page 13