The trial court did not err in instructing the jurors that they need not unanimously agree on the specific overt act that the defendant committed in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit murder (CALCRIM No. 563). CALCRIM No. 563 complies with People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, and does not violate the Sixth Amendment. No unanimity instruction is required when, as here, there is only one conspiracy charged, and the only possible uncertainty is how the defendant perpetrated that conspiracy.

As applied, the absence of an unanimity requirement on the specific overt act did not render PC 184 unconstitutionally vague. PC 184 provides sufficient guidance as to what constitutes an overt act and how to distinguish overt acts from planning activity. As CALCRIM No. 563 instructed the jury, an overt act must be “done to help accomplish the agreed upon crime” and “must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime.”

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A168292.PDF