Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents

F 6.25 n1  Propriety Of Multiple Conspiracy Convictions For Conspiracy To Commit Multiple Acts (PC 182).

There is a conflict in authority as to whether a conspiracy to commit multiple criminal acts may be the predicate for multiple convictions of conspiracy.  In People v. Morocco (87) 191 CA3d 1449, 1452 [237 CR 113], the court relied upon People v. Cook (84) 151 CA3d 1142, 1146 [199 CR 269], to conclude — in the context of a solicitation charge  — that the question of whether one or multiple solicitations took place is a question of fact.  (Id. at 1453.)  In making this determination, the Morocco court concluded that the jury should be instructed to consider whether the multiple crimes were part of a “larger all-inclusive” plan with a single objective and/or motive.  (Ibid.; see also People v. Miley (84) 158 CA3d 25, 31, fn 4 [204 CR 347].) 

The same rationale and need for instruction applies to a conspiracy charge.  “Where two or more persons agree to commit a number of criminal acts, the test of whether a single conspiracy has been formed is whether the acts “were tied together as stages in the formation of a larger all-inclusive combination, all directed to achieving a single unlawful end or result.”  (Blumenthal v. U.S. (47) 332 US 539, 558 [92 LEd 154; 68 SCt 248]; see also People v. Skelton (80) 109 CA3d 691, 717-18 [167 CR 636].)

The same division of the First District Court of Appeal which decided the Morocco case again concluded in People v. Williams (88) 201 CA3d 439, 444 [247 CR 200], that “whether one or multiple solicitations has occurred is a question of fact.”  (Williams at 444.)

Two other decisions, however, conflict with Morocco.  People v. Davis (89) 211 CA3d 317, 322-24 [259 CR 348], and People v. McLead (90) 225 CA3d 906, 919-20 [276 CR 187], disagreed with Morocco’s conclusion that the matter is a question of fact for the jury to determine under appropriate instruction, holding instead that the prosecutor has the authority to charge as many conflicting counts as are shown by the evidence.

CJ 6.25 and CJ 6.26 provide an instruction and form of verdict for use when there was a conspiracy to commit two or more felonies but only one offense of conspiracy is alleged.

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES