A169979
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 11, 2025Background
- Lloyd Demetrius Gant was convicted by jury of one count of indecent exposure at a nail salon in Fremont, California after exposing himself to multiple individuals.
- Gant entered the salon, exposed his genitals to the manicurist and later to other customers, and behaved erratically until police intervened and arrested him.
- At trial, evidence included eyewitness testimony, surveillance video, and Gant’s statement to police that he thought he was acting in a pornographic film.
- The trial court admitted evidence of Gant’s prior indecent exposure convictions to show his intent.
- The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on other charged counts (including sexual battery and resisting arrest), leading to mistrial on those counts; Gant was sentenced to three years on the indecent exposure conviction alone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to give a unanimity instruction sua sponte on the indecent exposure count | Unanimity instruction not needed because acts were part of a continuous course of conduct | Multiple acts alleged; thus, jury should be told to agree on specific act underlying conviction | No error; acts formed a single course of conduct, so no instruction required |
| Whether any error in omitting a unanimity instruction was prejudicial | Any omission was harmless under the facts | Omission prejudicial as jurors may have convicted on different acts | Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Applicability of continuous course of conduct exception | Exception applied because exposures occurred within brief period, at same location, and with same defense | Exception inapplicable; exposures to different people were distinct acts requiring jury unanimity | Exception applies; jury could not distinguish the acts and defense was the same for all |
| Whether touching the victim’s breast was part of the indecent exposure charge | Not part of indecent exposure, which focused on public exposing of genitals | Touching was a separate act, requiring different jury analysis | Touching related to a separate sexual battery count, not indecent exposure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Russo, 25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) (explaining the requirement for jury unanimity in cases with multiple discrete acts).
- People v. Riel, 22 Cal.4th 1153 (Cal. 2000) (omission of unanimity instruction is reversible unless harmless).
- People v. Gunn, 197 Cal.App.3d 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (continuous course of conduct exception defined and explained).
- People v. Mota, 115 Cal.App.3d 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (repeated criminal acts within a short time may constitute a continuous course of conduct).
- People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68 (Cal. 1991) (jury need not be given a unanimity instruction when acts are substantially identical and inseparable).
- People v. Haynes, 61 Cal.App.4th 1282 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (acts occurring within minutes and proximity deemed a continuous course of conduct).