What is the test for a jury to reach a unanimous verdict in a motor vehicle manslaughter case?

Appellant contends that she is entitled to a jury verdict on all facts that are elements of the crimes charged as opposed to alternate ways to commit the crime. She argues that, here, "the act of driving is an element of vehicular manslaughter ( 192, subd. (c)(1), (2) & (3)) and driving under the influence (Vehicle Code, 23153, subd. (a), (b)) and so must be proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt." Appellant relies on Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624, in which the United States Supreme Court upheld instructions permitting the jury to reach one unanimous murder verdict based on various mental state findings pertaining to premeditation or felony murder. (Id. at pp. 644-645.) Appellant cites the portion of the opinion in which the court cautioned that a defendant has a due process right to understand with specificity the charges against him, and that it is an assumption of our criminal justice system that "no person may be punished criminally save upon proof of some specific illegal conduct." (Id. at p. 632.) According to appellant, "[i]f an individual juror was not sure that appellant was the driver of the vehicle and not sure about whether she was an aider and abettor, then appellant should not have been convicted."

Page 19