Does a jury have to agree on unanimity in a sexual assault case?

Moreover, in the present case, the unanimity instruction was a superfluous happenstance. "[N]o unanimity instruction is required when the acts alleged are so closely connected as to form part of one continuing transaction" and a defendant does not offer any distinct defenses to the different acts such that a jury could reasonably distinguish among them. (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 274-275.) Had the trial court not instructed on unanimity, any of the threats would then have been a proper basis for the verdict, and therefore a proper basis for a sentencing choice. We do not believe the needless instruction should straitjacket a sentencing court's review of the evidence in assessing the scope of its discretion under section 667.