Return to CALJIC Part 9-12 – Contents
F 12.55.3 n1 Destructive/Explosive Devices: Definition of “Wrongfully.”
PC 12303.3 requires an intent to “wrongfully” injure or destroy any property. In this context, the term wrongfully should be construed to require an intent to injure the property or other rights of another. [Additional briefing on this issue is available to FORECITE subscribers. Ask for Brief Bank # B-614.]
F 12.55.3a
Possession, Etc. Of Destructive Device/Explosive:
Requirement Of Intent To Injure Another
*Modify CJ 12.55.3 ¶ 2 as follows: [added language is capitalized; deleted language is between <<>>]:
Every person who possesses, explodes, ignites or attempts to explode or ignite any destructive device or any explosive with the specific intent to injure, intimidate or terrify <<any>> ANOTHER person, or with the specific intent to wrongfully injure or destroy any property, is guilty of a violation of section 12303.3 of the Penal Code, a crime.
In order to prove such crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
[1. person possessed, exploded, ignited any [destructive device] [or] [explosive;] [or]
[1. person attempted to explode or ignite any [destructive device] [or] [explosive];] and
2. uch person had the specific intent [to explode or ignite any __________, and] [to injure, intimidate, or terrify <<any>> ANOTHER person] [or] [to wrongfully injure or destroy <<any>> ANOTHER PERSON’S property] [OR] [TO WRONGFULLY INFRINGE UPON THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF ANOTHER].
For the purposes of this instruction, the term wrongfully requires an intent to infringe upon the legal rights of another in destroying or injuring that other person’s property.
Points and Authorities
PC 12303.3 requires either an intent to injure, intimidate or terrify, or intent to “wrongfully” injure or destroy any property. In this context, the term “wrongfully” should be construed to require an intent to injure the property or other rights of another. (People v. Godwin (95) 31 CA4th 1112, 1116-18 [37 CR2d 708].) [Additional briefing on this issue is available to FORECITE subscribers. Ask for Brief Bank # B-614.]
In People v. Godwin, the court accepted the argument, advanced earlier in FORECITE, that the term “wrongfully” requires an intent to injure the property or rights of another. The court reasoned that even though the statute used the term “any person” it should not be interpreted to allow conviction for a defendant who only intended to injure himself or only intended to injure his own property. (See also, CJ 12.55.6 and CJ 12.55.7 which first tracked the statutory language including the term “to any person” and then required in pertinent part that to prove violations, the explosion of the destructive device must have caused another person to suffer bodily injury, great bodily injury, mayhem or death.
Failure to adequately instruct the jury upon matters relating to proof of any element of the charge and/or the prosecution’s burden of proof thereon violates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. [See generally, FORECITE PG VII(C).]
