Whitaker, the circuit court was required to give the jury a unanimity instruction. We disagree. In multiple-acts cases where several acts are alleged and any one of them could constitute the crime charged, the State must either elect the particular criminal act upon which it will rely for conviction, or the circuit court must instruct the jurors that all of them must agree that the same underlying-criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinyama, 101 Hawai'i 389, 399, 69 P.3d 517, 527 (2003) (quoting State v. Jones, 96 Hawai'i 161, 170, 29 P.3d 351, 360 (2001)). However, a unanimity instruction is not required where a charged offense is based on a “single incident of culpable conduct.” See State v. Valentine, 93 Hawai'i 199, 208-09, 998 P.2d 479, 488-89 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, “no specific unanimity instruction
holding that because a jury need only agree that a defendant possessed a firearm in order to find a defendant guilty of violating  922g1 a unanimity instruction was not required where defendant was charged with one count of violating  922g1 and multiple firearms were listed in that count holding that a unanimity instruction was not required where evidence showed only a single episode between the defendant and a police officer during which the two allegedly engaged in a continuous struggle for possession and control of a firearm holding that the defendants possession of the firearm was not so fleeting as to warrant an instruction on temporary innocent possession holding that when the evidence shows that the defendant is guilty of premeditated and felony murder a jury instruction on unanimity is irrelevant holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense