P. v. Long CA3
Defendant Joshua Eugene Long appeals his conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). He contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on unanimity, arguing that the jurors’ questions and failure to reach a verdict on the gun enhancement signal their disagreement as to the conduct underlying the “force or fear” element. As we explain, where, as here, there was evidence of only one discreet crime--no matter how it was committed--instruction on unanimity is not required. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
As we explain, post, based on intervening events, we shall remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of permitting the exercise of discretion whether to dismiss the five-year enhancement previously mandated by section 667, subdivision (a).
Comments on P. v. Long CA3