In State v. Simonson, 91 Wn. App. 874, 960 P.2d 955 (Wash. 1998), the defendant was convicted inter alia of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine. 960 P.2d at 959. At trial, a witness testified that "during February and March 1996, he had been to the defendant's trailers and had seen the defendant manufacturing methamphetamine." Id. at 958. On appeal, the court of appeals stated in relevant part as follows: A unanimity instruction is required, whether requested or not, when a jury could find from the evidence that the defendant committed a single charged offense on two or more distinct occasions. . . . A jury cannot find that the defendant committed a single charged offense on two or more occasions, however, if the evidence shows only that the defendant committed a single continuing offense. Id. at 960. Because "the evidence . . . showed that [the defendant and his accomplice] were committing a continuing offense, manufacturing methamphetamine, over a six-week period of time," id., the appellate court concluded a unanimity instruction was unnecessary because "there [was] no danger that some jurors would have found the occurrence of one crime while other jurors found the occurrence of a different crime." Id. at 961.