SERIES 1600 ROBBERY AND CARJACKING
F 1650 Carjacking (PC 215)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 1650.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 1650.1 Inst 1 Carjacking—Title
F 1650.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
F 1650.2 Carjacking—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 1650.2 Inst 1 Carjacking: Tailoring To Facts—Specify Vehicle
F 1650.3 Carjacking—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc. [Reserved]
F 1650.4 Carjacking—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 1650.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
F 1650.5 Carjacking—Elements And Definitions
F 1650.5 Inst 1 Carjacking: Separate Enumeration Of Combined Elements; Tailoring To Facts
F 1650.5 Inst 2 Carjacking: Victim’s Fear Must Be Objectively Reasonable
F 1650.6 Carjacking—Defense Theories
F 1650.6 Inst 1 (a & b) Carjacking: Pinpoint Instruction On After Acquired Intent; Correction Of Burden Shifting Language
F 1650.7 Carjacking—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 1650.8 Carjacking—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 1650.9 Carjacking—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]
Return to Series 1600 Table of Contents.
F 1650.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 1650.1 Inst 1 Carjacking—Title
See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.
F 1650.1 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 1650.2Carjacking—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 1650.2 Inst 1 Carjacking: Tailoring To Facts—Specify Vehicle
*Modify CC 1650 as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
[Change “a motor vehicle” or “the vehicle” to “[_______________ <describer or identify vehicle>“]
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 400.2 Inst 1.
F 1650.3 Carjacking—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.[Reserved]
F 1650.4 Carjacking—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 1650.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.
F 1650.5 Carjacking—Elements And Definitions
F 1650.5 Inst 1 Carjacking: Separate Enumeration Of Combined Elements; Tailoring To Facts
*Replace CC 1650, Elements, as follows:
1. The defendant gained possession of a vehicle and moved it some distance;
2. The defendant did not [own] [have a legal right to the vehicle];
3. The defendant gained possession of the vehicle by taking it from _______________’s <name of alleged victim>:
A. Possession;
AND
B. Immediate presence;
3. When the defendant gained possession of the vehicle it was:
A. _______________ <name of alleged victim> was in possession of it or _______________ <name of alleged victim> was a passenger in it,
AND
B. It was sufficiently in _______________’s <name of alleged victim> control.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 3500.2 Inst 1.
F 1650.5 Inst 2 Carjacking: Victim’s Fear Must Be Objectively Reasonable
*Add to CC 1650:
The fear or intimidation element of robbery requires proof of the following:
1. The victim was induced to part with his property without [his] [her] consent as a result of actual fear caused by the defendant’s conduct;
2. The victim’s fear was genuine and reasonable under the circumstances [, or if unreasonable, the perpetrator must have known of the victim’s subjective fear and taken advantage of it].
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 1600.5 Inst 8.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 9.46a.
F 1650.6 Carjacking—Defense Theories
F 1650.6 Inst 1 (a & b) Carjacking: Pinpoint Instruction On After Acquired Intent; Correction Of Burden Shifting Language
Alternative a:
*Replace CC 1650, paragraph 3, with the following:
To convict the defendant of carjacking, you must find that [he] [she] had the intent to steal before or at the time of the application of force or violence, or the use of fear or intimidation.
The defendant contends that any intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle was formed after the application of force or fear upon the victim. The defendant does not need to prove this contention. If after consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that defendant had the required intent at the time the force or fear was applied, you must find [him] [her] not guilty of carjacking.
Alternative b [Modified version of CC 1650, paragraph 3] [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
*Replace CC 1600, paragraph 3, with the following:
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s intent to take the vehicle must have been was formed before or during the time (he/she) used force or fear. If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant did not formed this required intent until after before using the force or fear, then (he/she) did not commit carjacking.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 1600.6 Inst 1.
F 1650.7 Carjacking—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 1650.8 Carjacking—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 1650.9 Carjacking—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]
