P. v. Arciga
Defendant Tomas Arciga is serving 100 years to life after a jury convicted him of four counts of sodomizing his young nephew. In this appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that it must unanimously agree on which four incidents formed the basis for the four charges. As discussed below, we conclude that the prosecutor unambiguously elected to use the four discrete events that defendant described during an interview with a sheriff’s deputy, and so no unanimity instruction was necessary.
Comments on P. v. Arciga