SERIES 200 POST-TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY
F 253 UNION OF ACT AND INTENT: CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 253 Inst 1 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – Applicability To Multiple Acts Or Course Of Conduct
F 253 Inst 2 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – Act Must Be “Committed”
F 253 Inst 3 Instruction Should Be Tailored To Facts
F 253 Inst 4 Union of Act and Intent: Deletion Of Terms “General” and “Specific” Intent
F 253 NOTES
F 253 Note 1 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
Return to Series 200 Table of Contents.
F 253 Inst 1 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – Applicability To Multiple Acts Or Course Of Conduct
*Modify CC 253 as follows [added language is underlined]:
In order to be guilty of the crime[s] of ________ <insert name[s] of alleged offense[s]> [or the allegation[s] of ________ <insert name[s] of enhancement[s]>], a person must do an act or acts [and] [or] [course of conduct] [or fail to do an act or acts [and] [or] [course of conduct]] with (criminal/gross) negligence. (Criminal/Gross) negligence is defined in the instructions on that crime.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 250 Inst 1.
F 253 Inst 2 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – Act Must Be “Committed”
*Modify CC 253 as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
. . . a person must do commit an act [or fail to do commit an act] . . .
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request– [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
“Commit” Is More Appropriate – The term “commit” is more appropriate than “do.” (See e.g., CALCRIM 250, paragraph 2, sentence 1.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization – To preserve federal claims counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 3.8 [Concurrence Of Act And Intent Or Mental State]
In death penalty cases additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 253 Inst 3 Instruction Should Be Tailored To Facts
*Modify CC 253 as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
In order to be guilty of the crime[s] of _______ <insert name[s] of alleged offense[s]> [or the allegation[s] of _______ <insert name[s] of enhancement[s]>], a person must do an act [or fail to do an act] the prosecution must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that _______________ <name of defendant> committed _______________ <insert alleged actus reus> [or failed to _______________ <insert alleged omitted act> which defendant had a duty to performwith (criminal/gross) negligence. (Criminal/Gross) negligence is defined in the instructions on that crime.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request –[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Reference To Defendant Rather Than “A Person” Or “Someone” – Reference to “a person” rather than the defendant is vague, imprecise and potentially confusing. (Compare CALCRIM 401 [elements described as to the defendant].) Moreover, the judge has a duty to tailor the instructions to the facts. (See FORECITE F 400.2 Inst 1.)
Use Of The Term “Defendant” – The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
Use Of The Term “Prosecution” Instead Of “People” – See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1; CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.
WARNING! Federal Constitutional Claims May Be Lost Without Proper Federalization – To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 3.7 [Failure To Tailor Elements To The Facts And Charge]
FORECITE CG 5.4.1 [Instructions That Suggest An Opinion as To An Essential Fact, An Element Or Guilt]
FORECITE CG 5.4.2 [Argumentative Instructions Not Suggesting Opinion On Guilt]
FORECITE CG 5.4.3 [Undue Emphasis Of Specific Evidence]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 253 Inst 4 Union of Act and Intent: Deletion Of Terms “General” and “Specific” Intent
Modify CC 253 as follows: Delete references to “General” or “Specific” intent in the title and/or body of the instruction.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE PG XI(H).
F 253 Note 1 Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence – CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
CALCRIM Cross-References:
CALCRIM 250 [Union of Act and Intent: General Intent]
CALCRIM 251 [Union of Act and Intent: Specific Intent or Mental State]
CALCRIM 252 [Union of Act and Intent: General and Specific Intent Together]
CALCRIM 254 [Union of Act and Intent: Strict-Liability Crime]
