When multiple acts constitute a continuous course of conduct, does the court have to agree that unanimity instruction is required in order to convict multiple acts?

However, no unanimity instruction is required where the multiple acts constitute a continuous course of conduct. This exception arises in two situations. First, it arises when the criminal statute contemplates a continuous course of conduct of a series of events over a period of time. (People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 108, 115.) Alternatively, it applies when the acts alleged are so closely connected as to form part of one continuing transaction or course of conduct. (People v. Dieguez, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 275.) Both of these exceptions apply in this case.