What is the difference between a defendant and a jury in a robbery case?

But the defense underlying both explanations was the same, i.e., that defendant did not have the necessary intent. Defendant did not assert a separate defense to different acts or suggest that some occurred while others did not. Rather, he essentially conceded his conduct but denied he had formed the intent required to impose criminal liability. The jury had no reasonable basis to decide defendant committed some of the acts and not the others. The evidence about each act was of equal probative value, weight, and credibility. If the jury found he committed any of them, it must have found he committed all of them. (See People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199-1200 [unanimity instruction unnecessary where there was "no danger" a jury would find the defendant committed one robbery but not the other and the defense to both was the

Page 6