California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mendoza, F064214 (Cal. App. 2013):
For example, a jury may convict a defendant of first degree murder without making a unanimous determination as to the theories proposed by the prosecution, e.g., that the murder was deliberate and premeditated or that it was committed during the course of a felony. (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1024-1025; People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 92.)
Similarly, unanimity 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.) More specifically, "[t]he 'continuous conduct' rule applies when the defendant offers essentially the same defense to each of the acts, and there is no reasonable basis for the jury to distinguish between them." (People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100.)
Page 33
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.