Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instruction on Jury Unanimity

Text: (21) Defendants assert that the prosecution's evidence against them did not clearly show whether they were direct perpetrators or aiders and abettors of each of the offenses charged. Accordingly, they argue, the trial court should, on its own motion, have instructed the jury that it could not convict defendants of any offense unless it unanimously agreed either that defendants were direct perpetrators of that offense, or that they were aiders and abettors. (See CALJIC No. 17.01.) The trial court's failure to do so, defendants contend, requires reversal of their convictions on all charges. We rejected the identical claim in People v. Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pages 92-94. As we explained, when the two theories, that [the defendant] was the actual perpetrator and that he was an aider and abetter, were based on a single course of conduct, jury unanimity is not required. ( Id. at p. 93.) Accordingly, here the trial court did not err when it failed to give a unanimity instruction. Defendant Ross, noting that victim Mary Taylor testified he had raped her on two separate occasions, contends that his rape conviction should be reversed because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it could convict him only if it unanimously agreed that he committed a particular act of rape. We find no error, for the reasons explained below. In this case, the rape victim testified that defendant Ross raped her twice, but the two rapes were virtually identical. After raping Taylor in the bathroom, Ross left, returning shortly thereafter to rape her again. Ross offered no evidence tending to show that he committed one of the rapes but not the other; rather, his counsel argued that he did not participate in any of the crimes occurring in the Taylor home. Thus, once a juror determined that defendant Ross committed one of the two rapes, it is inconceivable that the juror would not also conclude that Ross also committed the second rape of the same victim. In People v. Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d 68, we held that under circumstances such as those described above, a trial court need not give a unanimity instruction. We explained: `A unanimity instruction is required only if the jurors could otherwise disagree which act a defendant committed and yet convict him of the crime charged.' [Citations.] `[W]here the acts were substantially identical in nature, so that any juror believing one act took place would inexorably believe all acts took place, the instruction is not necessary to the jury's understanding of the case.' ( Id. at p. 93; see also People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 100 [270 Cal. Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23]; People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 875 [251 Cal. Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423].) Because in this case any juror believing that defendant Ross committed one of the two rapes testified to by Mary Taylor would inexorably believe that he also committed the other, the trial court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction. [21]