Does the unanimity instruction apply in the context of an embezzlement case?

The appellate court rejected the People's argument that Daniel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d 168, 193 Cal.Rptr. 277, applied because defendant's embezzlement, from the same location and the same victim, with the same intent to steal, was a single course of conduct. Unlike the defendant in Daniel, the Laport defendant used dissimilar means of committing theft and offered different defenses. The different defenses raised the problem the unanimity instruction was designed to prevent. Some jurors could have believed Laport committed theft by writing the checks and others could have believed she stole the paintings, thus they all could have found her guilty without agreeing on the act she committed. (People v. Laport,

Page 804