Appellant was convicted of multiple acts of cruelty to animals, each count of which was based on multiple acts. On appeal, he argued that the trial court failed to give a unanimity instruction, and one was required because various and distinct acts could constitute each charge, and there were different defenses to each act. The appellate court here agreed only as to one count, which was committed as a single act. As to the others, the court held that animal abuse may be committed as a continuous course of conduct, and when so committed requires no unanimity instruction. Further, the assertion of multiple defenses did not require a unanimity instruction. Appellant failed to establish that his various defenses attended to different criminal acts.