Does the jury need to unanimously agree on the form of theft?

Dunham contends the jurors received two improper nonunanimity instructions. First, they were instructed they did not need to agree on the form of theft, as follows: "You may not find the defendant guilty of theft unless all of you agree that the People have proved that the defendant committed theft under at least one theory. But all of you do not have to agree on the same theory." (CALCRIM No. 1861.) Dunham argues that under the evidence presented, the jury may not have unanimously agreed on all the elements of either false pretenses or embezzlement. (People v. Williams (2013)

Page 49

57 Cal.4th 776, 785-786; People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 561; see CALCRIM No. 3500 [standard unanimity instruction].) Second, Dunham argues the jury was erroneously instructed that unanimity was not required as to particular misrepresentations or omissions in the context of securities fraud. We conclude there was no reversible error.

1. Applicable Standards