What role does a jury have in determining whether a defendant is guilty of first degree murder?

precise role was, the jury need not unanimously agree on the basis, or the "theory," whereby defendant is guilty, even if the theories are based on different facts. (People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 727; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1025.) Thus, in a situation where defendant argues the facts would support aiding and abetting liability and liability as a direct perpetrator, the jury need not unanimously agree on the precise factual details of how a killing under one or the other theory occurred in order to convict defendant of first degree murder. (Ibid.)

Additionally, "'[n]either an election nor a unanimity instruction is required when the crime falls under the "continuous conduct" exception.' [Citations.]" (People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1178.)

Under the "continuous conduct" rule, a unanimity instruction is not required when "the acts are so closely connected as to form part of one transaction" or "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.) This specific offense does not involve a "discrete crime" or "act;" it only requires that defendant promote, further, or assist in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.