SERIES 2200 VEHICLE OFFENSES
F 2200 Reckless Driving (VC 23103(a) & (b))
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 2200.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 2200.1 Inst 1 Reckless Driving—Title
F 2200.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
F 2200.2 Reckless Driving—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 2200.2 Inst 1 Separate Enumeration Of Combined Elements; Tailoring To Facts
F 2200.3 Reckless Driving—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 2200.3 Inst 1 Deletion Of Argumentative Language
F 2200.3 Inst 2 Willfully: Argumentative
F 2200.3 Inst 3 Clarification Of Language
F 2200.4 Reckless Driving—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 2200.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
F 2200.5 Reckless Driving—Elements And Definitions
F 2200.5 Inst 1 Willfully: Knowledge
F 2200.5 Inst 2 Reckless Driving: Definition Of Wanton As Extreme Indifference To Human Life
F 2200.5 Inst 3 Negligent Driving Is Not Reckless Driving
F 2200.6 Reckless Driving—Defense Theories
F 2200.6 Inst 1 Juror Consideration That Defendant Did Not Intend To Cause Damage
F 2200.6 Inst 2 Willfully: Balance
F 2200.7 Reckless Driving—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 2200.8 Reckless Driving—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 2200.9 Reckless Driving—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]
F 2200 Notes
F 2200 Note 1 Reckless Driving—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
F 2200 Note 2 What Constitutes Reckless Driving? (VC 23103)
F 2200 Note 3 Jury Should Not Be Informed Of Reason For Revocation
Return to Series 2200 Table of Contents.
F 2200.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 2200.1 Inst 1 Reckless Driving—Title
See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.
F 2200.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
See generally FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005 and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.
F 2200.2Reckless Driving—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 2200.2 Inst 1 Separate Enumeration Of Combined Elements; Tailoring To Facts
*Modify CC 2200, Elements, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
1. The defendant drove a vehicle _______________ <describe vehicle> (on a highway/in an offstreet parking facility) _______________ <describe street or location>;
AND
2. The defendant did so intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
AND
3. (He/She):
A. Was aware that (his/her) actions presented a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to persons or property, and
B. Intentionally ignored that risk.
[Delete 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th paragraphs.]
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 400.2 Inst 1.
F 2200.3 Reckless Driving—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 2200.3 Inst 1 Deletion Of Argumentative Language
*Delete CC 2200, paragraph 3, sentence 2, which provides:
The person does not, however, have to intend to cause damage.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 416.3 Inst 4.
STRATEGY NOTE AND CAVEAT—Objection to specific instruction on matters which the prosecution does not have to prove may open the door, in the judge’s view, to prosecutorial objection to specific evidence instructions on matters which are not alone sufficient to prove guilt. (See listing of such instructions at FORECITE PG XI(D)(2).) Although the considerations should be different due to the presumptions of innocence (see e.g., FORECITE F 100.1 Inst 1), the judge may not see it this way. In this light, an alternative approach could be a request that the instruction be balanced and clarified to assure the jurors do consider the specified matter in determining whether the prosecution has proven all essential facts and elements of the charged offense. (See FORECITE F 2200.6 Inst 1.)
Additionally, if the judge rejects a defense request to delete or balance argumentative language that favors the prosecution, this may provide a basis for requesting argumentative language favoring the defendant in another instruction. [See generally FORECITE F 416.3 Inst 4.]
F 2200.3 Inst 2 Willfully: Argumentative
See FORECITE F 820.3 Inst 1.
F 2200.3 Inst 3 Clarification Of Language
*Modify CC 2200, paragraph 6, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
[The term highway or street describes any area publicly maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel, and includes a street including that portion used for parking, sidewalk, or pedestrian travel.]
Points and Authorities
Blanton v. Curry (1942) 20 C2d 793, 799-804; see also CJ 16.602.
F 2200.4 Reckless Driving—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 2200.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.
F 2200.5 Reckless Driving—Elements And Definitions
F 2200.5 Inst 1 Willfully: Knowledge
See FORECITE F 820.5 Inst 1.
F 2200.5 Inst 2 Reckless Driving: Definition Of Wanton As Extreme Indifference To Human Life.
* Add to CC 2200:
A wanton act is an act made with extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Extreme Indifference To Human Life As Element Of Wanton Act—See Perkins, Criminal Law (3d ed. 1982) p. 60.
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 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 16.840a.
F 2200.5 Inst 3 Negligent Driving Is Not Reckless Driving
*Add to CC 2200:
Even if the prosecution proves that the defendant was grossly negligent that would not alone be sufficient to prove the defendant acted recklessly.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request – [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Instruction – See People v. Allison (1950) 101 CA2d Supp 932.
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 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 2200.6 Reckless Driving—Defense Theories
F 2200.6 Inst 1 Juror Consideration That Defendant Did Not Intend To Cause Damage
*Add after CC 2200, paragraph 3:
Alternative a [fact not disputed]:
However, the fact that the defendant did not intend to cause damage is a circumstance to consider in evaluating whether the prosecution has proven [all the elements of the alleged _______________] [_______________ <insert specific element to which the evidence relates>].
Alternative b [fact disputed]:
However, whether or not the defendant intended to cause damage is a circumstance to consider in evaluating whether the prosecution has proven [all the elements of the alleged _______________] [_____________ <insert specific element to which the evidence relates>].
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 416.3 Inst 7.
F 2200.6 Inst 2 Willfully: Balance
See FORECITE F 820.3 Inst 2.
F 2200.7 Reckless Driving—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 2200.8 Reckless Driving—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 2200.9 Reckless Driving—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]
F 2200 NOTES
F 2200 Note 1Reckless Driving—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
CALCRIM Cross-References:
CALCRIM 2201 [Speed Contest]
CALCRIM 2202 [Exhibition Of Speed]
Research Notes:
See CLARAWEB Forum, Vehicle Offenses—Series 2100.
F 2200 Note 2 What Constitutes Reckless Driving? (VC 23103)
See Annotation, What amounts to reckless driving of motor vehicle within statute making such a criminal offense, 52 ALR2d 1337 and Later Case Service.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 16.840 n1.
F 2200 Note 3 Jury Should Not Be Informed Of Reason For Revocation
See Levenson & Ricciardulli, California Criminal Jury Instruction Handbook (West 2012-2013), § 9:11, Defense Perspective, pp. 535-36.
