In a dependent adult abuse case, is there sufficient evidence to convict appellant of criminal threat and criminal threat convictions?

[9] Moreover, any error in failing to give the unanimity instruction was harmless. "The erroneous failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless if disagreement among the jurors concerning the different specific acts proved is not reasonably possible. [Fn. & citations omitted.]" ( People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 119, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 777.) This is such a case. With respect to all relevant acts underlying the abuse charge, other than the failure to wear isolation gear, appellant presented substantially the same defense-Murillo's testimony denying that the acts occurred. She also posed a consistent theory about those acts in arguing the case-i.e., hospital staff fabricated the alleged acts in response to her complaints against them. As to the failure to wear isolation gear, appellant seems to have suggested or argued that staff did not consistently follow or enforce this rule. It is clear that the jury resolved the basic credibility dispute against appellant and thus would have convicted her of dependent adult abuse based on any of the acts upon which that charge could have been based. Any error in failing to give CALCRIM No. 3500 was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Thompson (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 843, 853, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 798.)

There is Sufficient Evidence to Support Criminal Threat and Attempted Criminal Threat Convictions

Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support her criminal threat and attempted criminal threat convictions. We disagree.