In a prosecution for possession of narcotics for sale, is a jury required to unanimity as to the criminal act?

In a prosecution for possession of narcotics for sale, a unanimity instruction is required "where actual or constructive possession is based upon two or more individual units of contraband reasonably distinguishable by a separation in time and/or space and there is evidence as to each unit from which a reasonable jury could find that it was solely possessed by a person or persons other than the defendant." (People v. King (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 493, 501 (King).)

"This requirement of unanimity as to the criminal act 'is intended to eliminate the danger that the defendant will be convicted even though there is no single offense which all the jurors agree the defendant committed.' [Citation.] . . . 'The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.' [Citation.]" (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132.) But a unanimity instruction is not required when the evidence shows only one criminal act. (People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1198.) We review such a claim of instructional error de novo. (People v. Shaw (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 833, 838.)

Page 6