What is the test for unanimity instruction in a criminal case where a defendant's criminal actions are interrelated and/or interrelated?

This argument fails. "[A] unanimity instruction is not required where the criminal acts are so closely connected as to form a single transaction or where the offense itself consists of a continuous course of conduct. [Citation.] . . . [I]n both cases, the multiple acts constitute one discrete criminal event." (People v. Sanchez (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 622, 631.) "[C]ourts have found a continuing course of conduct where the wrongful acts were successive, compounding, interrelated, [or] aimed at a single objective." (Id. at p. 632.) Here, defendant's criminal actions were interrelated and aimed at selling or helping others sell the stolen copper tubing. Because the acts alleged by the prosecution describe a single criminal event, no unanimity instruction was required. (Id. at pp. 631-632.)