Tag Archives: Mens Rea: Intent


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
March 21st, 2023

This post Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM addressed the failure of the CALCRIM instructions to include the required element when the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator who is alleged to have acted with implied malice.   These defects in the CALCRIM instructions […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
February 27th, 2023

This post Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM addressed the failure of the CALCRIM instructions to include the required element when the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator who is alleged to have acted with implied malice.   These defects in the CALCRIM instructions […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
January 24th, 2023

This post Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM addressed the failure of the CALCRIM instructions to include the required element when the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator who is alleged to have acted with implied malice. These defects in the CALCRIM instructions were […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
November 30th, 2022

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s “own mens rea.” (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122; see also People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-13.) The aider and abettor’s mens rea includes several subjective mental elements as observed by People […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


CC 2300 — Transportation of a Controlled Substance — Does Not Adequately Explain the Specific Intent Element of the Offense
March 6th, 2018

Effective January 1, 2014, Health and Safety Code section 11379 was amended to limit the meaning of “transports” under the statute to transportation “for sale.” The jury instruction for section 11379 offenses was modified to reflect the 2014 amendment to the statute by inserting the words “for sale” after the word “transported” — “To prove […]


Tags: , , , , , , ,


CC 370 (Motive): Will Lay Jurors Understand the Subtle Difference Between Intent – Which Is an Element of the Charge – and Motive – Which Is Not?
March 14th, 2017

The CSC has suggested that lay jurors will readily understand the subtle distinction between intent – which is an element of many crimes – and motive – which is generally not an element …[A]lthough malice and certain intents and purposes are elements of the crimes, as the court correctly instructed the jury, motive is not […]


Tags: , , , , ,


Motive Instruction: Clarification Of Problematic Burden Shifting Language
March 14th, 2017

As revised in August 2016, CALCRIM 370 provides as follows: The People are not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit (any of the crimes/the crime) charged. In reaching your verdict you may, however, consider whether the defendant had a motive. Having a motive may be a factor tending to show that the defendant […]


Tags: , , , ,


Is Larcenous Intent an Element of Robbery?
September 12th, 2016

For decades CALJIC 9.40 has relied on the literal language of PC 211 to define the specific intent required for robbery as an intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property that is taken. However, this definition is erroneous because robbery requires an intent to steal which is defined as an intent to permanently […]


Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Mens Rea For Embezzlement: Intent To Temporarily Deprive
December 30th, 2014

  People v. Casas (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1247, concluded that the trial court correctly modified CC 1808 to instruct the jury that “an intent to temporarily deprive was sufficient to prove the mens rea of the crime of embezzlement.” Although not fully clear from the Casas opinion, the trial court’s modification was […]


Tags: , ,


Threatening A Public Official: Intent To Carry Out the Threat
December 1st, 2014

  People v. Barrios (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 270, upheld this instruction, rejecting an argument that improperly stated the law. The defendant argued that CC 2650 was incorrect because “it tells the jury that the defendant need not have the intent to carry out the threat, only the intent that the statement be taken […]


Tags: , ,