In People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, the defendant was charged with one count of making a threat in violation of section 422, but the evidence indicated that the defendant threatened the victim at 9:00 a.m. and again at 11:00 a.m. (Melhado, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1534-1535.) "The prosecutor informed the court, out of the jury's presence, that he was relying on the 11 a.m. threat," but the "jury was never informed, in so many words, that the prosecutor had 'elected' to rely on the 11 a.m. event and that to convict each juror was therefore required to find that appellant had made a terrorist threat at that time." (Id. at p. 1535.) The appellate court rejected the argument that the prosecutor's closing argument obviated the need to give a unanimity instruction: "It is possible to parse the prosecution's closing argument in a manner which suggests that more emphasis was placed on the 11 a.m. event than on the others. However, even assuming that this was so, we find that the argument did not satisfy the requirement that the jury either be instructed on unanimity or informed that the prosecution had elected to seek conviction only for the 11 a.m. event, so that a finding of guilty could only be returned if each juror agreed that the crime was committed at that time. Because the prosecutor did not directly inform the jurors of his election and of their concomitant duties, it was error for the judge to refuse a unanimity instruction in the first instance and to disregard his sua sponte duty thereafter." (Id. at p. 1536.) The court explained: "If the prosecution is to communicate an election to the jury, its statement must be made with as much clarity and directness as would a judge in giving instruction. The record must show that by virtue of the prosecutor's statement, the jurors were informed of their duty to render a unanimous decision as to a particular unlawful act." (Id. at p. 1539.)