What is the law on unanimity as to which crime defendant committed?

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.' " (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 (Russo).) While the jury must agree on which crime defendant committed, there is no similar rule regarding the manner in which the crime was committed. "[W]here the evidence shows only a single discrete crime but leaves room for disagreement as to exactly how that crime was committed or what the defendant's precise role was, the jury need not unanimously agree on the basis or, as the cases often put it, the 'theory' whereby the defendant is guilty." (Ibid.)

No unanimity instruction was required here because there was no evidence of more than one criminal event. As noted above, the constitutional requirement of unanimity applies when "the evidence at trial indicates that the defendant committed more than one ' "discrete criminal event." ' " (People v. Quiroz (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 65, 73.) "Where the evidence suggests that the defendant might have committed more than one crime, the court must instruct the jury that it must agree on which of the actsand, hence, which of the crimesthe defendant committed." (Ibid.) In contrast, a unanimity instruction is not required " 'when the acts alleged are so closely connected as to form part of one transaction.' " (People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 98.) Here, only one discrete criminal event was alleged and proven: defendant's attempt to rob the ice cream vendor. All of the events about which evidence was presented at trial occurred within seconds of each other in a single, uninterrupted flow as part of that attempt. In particular, each trigger pull by defendant occurred in the course of this single criminal "transaction." Because there was evidence of only one possible crime, the trial court was under no duty to instruct on unanimity.