P.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant was convicted of the following crimes against the following victims: (1) Shannon Doe: forcible penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code § 289, subd.(a)(1)),1 three counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), and two counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)); (2) Barbara Doe: forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), and forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)); (3) Cecilia Doe: forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)); and (4) N. Doe: assault with intent to commit a sex crime (§ 220, subd. (a)). On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred because (1) it failed to give sua sponte a unanimity instruction on one of the counts involving Shannon Doe; (2) it did not instruct the jury sua sponte on the meaning of “consent”; (3) it failed to instruct sua sponte on simple assault as a lesser included offense of rape with regard to Cecilia Doe; (4) it failed to instruct sua sponte on simple assault as a lesser included offense of assault

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

1 with intent to commit rape with regard to N. Doe; and (5) it erred in admitting testimony from the nurse who conducted Cecilia Doe’s…