SERIES 2400 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
F 2430 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds (HS 11370.6)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 2430.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 2430.1 Inst 1 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds —Title
F 2430.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
F 2430.2 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds —Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories [Reserved]
F 2430.3 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 2430.3 Inst 1 Improper Comment On The Evidence
F 2430.4 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 2430.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
F 2430.5 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Elements And Definitions
F 2430.5 Inst 1 Failure To Define “Sale,” “Transportation” And “Manufacture”
F 2430.6 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Defense Theories
F 2430.6 Inst 1 Possession
F 2430.7 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 2430.8 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 2430.9 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]
F 2430 Notes
F 2430 Note 1 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
F 2430 Note 2 Unlawful Possession Of Money: Factors-To-Consider Instruction Does Not Negate Burden Of Proof
Return to Series 2400 Table of Contents.
F 2430.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 2430.1 Inst 1 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds —Title
See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.
F 2430.1 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 2430.2 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds —Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories [Reserved]
F 2430.3 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 2430.3 Inst 1 Improper Comment On The Evidence
*Modify CC 2430 as follows:
[Delete paragraphs 3-7.]
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 416.3 Inst 7.
F 2430.4 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 2430.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.
F 2430.5 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Elements And Definitions
F 2430.5 Inst 1 Failure To Define “Sale,” “Transportation” And “Manufacture”
*Modify CC 2430 as follows:
[Insert definitions in Elements or elsewhere as appropriate (see CC 2300, CC 2330).]
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
The CALCRIM Deficiency—CALCRIM 2430 fails to define the terms “sale,” “transportation” or “manufacture” even though these terms are defined in virtually all other controlled substance instructions. (See e.g., 2300, 2315, 2330, 2380.) Hence, the terms should be defined in CC 2430. [See FORECITE F 417.5 Inst 2.]
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 2430.6 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Defense Theories
F 2430.6 Inst 1 Possession
See FORECITE F 3306.
F 2430.7 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Preliminary Fact Issues[Reserved]
F 2430.8 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 2430.9 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—Lesser Offense Issues[Reserved]
F 2430 NOTES
F 2430 Note 1 Possession Of More Than $100,000 Related To Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
CALCRIM Cross-References:
CALCRIM 2431 [Possession of More Than $100,000 Related to Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Money to Purchase]
CALCRIM 2432 [Attorney’s Possession of More Than $100,000 Related to Transaction Involving Controlled Substance]
Research Notes:
See CLARAWEB Forum, Controlled Substances—Series 2300.
F 2430 Note 2 Unlawful Possession Of Money: Factors-To-Consider Instruction Does Not Negate Burden Of Proof
CJ 12.37, which is based on HS 11370.6, tells the jury to consider, inter alia, the defendant’s lack of gainful employment, in deciding whether the elements of a violation of HS 11370.6(a) have been proven. People v. Mitchell (1994) 30 CA4th 783, 804-806 held that CJ 12.37 does not unconstitutionally affect the burden of proof by negating the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and does not improperly require the defendant to prove gainful employment.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 12.37 n1.
