In People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151the preliminary hearing evidence testimony of several witnesses established that defendant brandished a .38 caliber revolver; at trial a different person testified to defendant's possession of a different gun. The information was amended to delete reference to the .38 caliber gun. The prosecutor stated the jury could convict defendant of possession on either incident and the jury was instructed on unanimity. At the preliminary hearing, there was evidence the defendant possessed a .38-calibre revolver. At trial, however, a different witness gave evidence, not mentioned at the preliminary hearing, that at a different time on the same date the defendant possessed a .357-calibre revolver. The trial court permitted the original complaint to be amended to delete the words, ".38 calibre" revolver. In closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury the defendant had possessed two different guns and, accordingly, he could be convicted of the possession charge based on the description of either gun. ( Id. at pp. 167, 169.) The appellate court determined that the amended information impermissibly allowed the defendant "to be convicted based on a completely different incident than that shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing." ( Id. at p. 171.) In sum, evidence at a preliminary hearing showed the defendant possessed and brandished a .38-caliber revolver during an altercation. ( People v. Burnett, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 164.) The prosecutor later amended the information to strike the description of the revolver as ".38-caliber," and she then presented evidence at trial showing the defendant also possessed a .357-caliber revolver during a different episode on the same date. ( Id. at pp. 167-168.) A divided panel of the Court of Appeal reversed the defendant's conviction, reasoning that his possession of a different weapon during a different incident (albeit on the same date) constituted a distinct offense from that originally set forth in the information and described at the preliminary hearing. ( Id. at pp. 169-170.) In so doing, the majority rejected the state's argument that the crime of possession was a single offense, which could be proven either by evidence relating to the .38-caliber revolver or by evidence about the .357-caliber revolver. ( Id. at pp. 172-173.)