People v. Lipscomb CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Lipscomb argues that the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing with CALRIM No. 3500, because the prosecutor presented evidence of two distinct and separate criminal acts -- the taking of Crazy Glue packets and a lipstick. She relies upon People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 562 [prosecutor presented evidence of two separate robberies; defendant had "entirely different" defenses regarding each robbery], and People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 562-563 [prosecutor presented evidence of two distinct acts of firearm possession separated by time and space]. Lipscomb points out that Ruvacalva did not observe her taking the Crazy Glue packets. Pursuant to the federal and California Constitutions, a jury verdict in a criminal prosecution must be unanimous. (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132.) In addition, the jury must unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty of a specific crime. (Ibid.) If the evidence suggests that the defendant may have committed more than one discrete crime, either the prosecutor must elect among the crimes or the court must instruct jurors to agree that the defendant committed the same criminal act.…