Opinion ID: 2637623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Identify and Require Juror Unanimity as to Specific Overt Acts

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it had to agree unanimously on specific overt acts in order to find him guilty under a conspiracy theory and by failing to identify the alleged overt acts. We recently rejected these contentions in People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1135, 108 Cal. Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641. As we explained, [disagreement as to who the coconspirators were or who did an overt act, or exactly what that act was, does not invalidate a conspiracy conviction, as long as a unanimous jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspirator did commit some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. ( Ibid. ) As conceded by defendant, the trial court properly defined overt acts for the jury. Accordingly, defendant's contention fails.