People v. Crawford CA1/1

facts supporting an enhancement allegation, he does cite to People v. Robbins (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 261 (Robbins), which, he claims, holds that a unanimity instruction is required when “there is evidence of multiple, distinguishable acts on which jurors could rely in making true findings on an enhancement.” That seriously mischaracterizes the holding of Robbins, which is entirely consistent with our decision. The defendant in Robbins was charged with sexual assault and an enhancement for the infliction of great bodily injury. (Id. at p. 263.) In the course of the assault, he had inflicted a multitude of injuries on the victim, some serious and some less so. The defendant argued a unanimity instruction was required with respect to which particular injury supported the enhancement allegation. (Id. at p. 264.) The court rejected the argument for essentially the reasons stated above: that the unanimity doctrine comes into play only when there is evidence of more than one “separate chargeable offense.” It was not triggered merely because there were several separate injuries. (Id. at pp. 265–266.)

Notwithstanding its holding, Robbins did state in dictum, “ ‘A unanimity instruction is…