What is the law on unanimity instruction in a motor vehicle case?

A unanimity instruction is required only if a jury could otherwise disagree as to which act an accused has committed, and yet still convict him of the charged offense. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 423.) No unanimity instruction is required when the evidence shows only one act. (People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1292.) Here, the evidence showed that defendant was driving the stolen truck. There is utterly no evidence to suggest that any jurors would have convicted defendant as the actual thief, but not as the driver of the stolen truck, even if some may have also believed that defendant did steal the truck.

Under any standard of review (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836), any error was harmless. Defendant was caught driving the truck. In the absence of any error, i.e., if a unanimity instruction had been given, the result would have been the same. Defendant was properly convicted in count 1 of violation of Vehicle Code section 10851.

II. Defendant Was Properly Convicted of Both Count 1 and Count 2