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

SERIES 2100 VEHICLE OFFENSES

F 2131 Refusal—Enhancement (VC 23577 & VC 23612)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 2131.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 2131.1 Inst 1 Refusal—Enhancement—Title
F 2131.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant

F 2131.2 Refusal—Enhancement—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 2131.2 Inst 1 Separate Enumeration Of Combined Elements; Tailoring To Facts

F 2131.3 Refusal—Enhancement—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 2131.3 Inst 1 Willfully: Argumentative
F 2131.3 Inst 2 Modification Of Coercive Language That Jurors “Must Decide” The Enhancement

F 2131.4 Refusal—Enhancement—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 2131.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements

F 2131.5 Refusal—Enhancement—Elements And Definitions
F 2131.5 Inst 1 Willfully: Separate Enumeration
F 2131.5 Inst 2 Willfully: Knowledge
F 2131.5 Inst 3 “Chemical Test”—Tailor To Theory
F 2131.5 Inst 4 Lawfulness Of Arrest And Probable Cause As Required Element

F 2131.6 Refusal—Enhancement—Defense Theories
F 2131.6 Inst 1 Willfully: Balance
F 2131.6 Inst 2 Pinpoint Instruction: Failure To Understand Duty To Submit To Testing Or Consequences Of Refusal

F 2131.7 Refusal—Enhancement—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]

F 2131.8 Refusal—Enhancement—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]

F 2131.9 Refusal—Enhancement—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]

Return to Series 2100 Table of Contents.


F 2131.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties

F 2131.1 Inst 1 Refusal—Enhancement—Title

See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.


F 2131.1 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 2131.2 Refusal—Enhancement—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories

F 2131.2 Inst 1 Separate Enumeration Of Combined Elements; Tailoring To Facts

*Modify CC 2131, Elements and paragraph 3, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:

1. A peace officer _______________ <name of peace officer> asked the defendant to submit to a chemical test to determine (his/her) blood alcohol content/[or] whether (he/she) had consumed a drug);

2. _______________ <name of peace officer> was a peace officer;

2 3. The peace officer _______________ <name of peace officer> fully advised the defendant of the requirement to submit to a test and the consequences of not submitting to a test;

AND

3 4. The defendant willfully refused to (submit to a test/ [or] to complete the test).

To have fully advised the defendant, the peace officer _______________ <name of peace officer> must have told (him/her) all of the following information:

…

Points and Authorities

Tailor To Facts—See FORECITE F 400.2 Inst 1.

Separate Enumeration—See FORECITE F 3500.2 Inst 1.


F 2131.3 Refusal—Enhancement—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.

F 2131.3 Inst 1 Willfully: Argumentative

Re: CC 2131, paragraph 5, see FORECITE F 820.3 Inst 1.


F 2131.3 Inst 2 Modification Of Coercive Language That Jurors “Must Decide” The Enhancement

*Modify CC 2131, paragraph 1, as follows [added language is underlined]:

If you find the defendant guilty of (causing injury while driving under the influence/ [or] [the lesser offense of] driving under the influence), you must then try to decide, if you can, whether …

Points and Authorities

See FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 1.


F 2131.4 Refusal—Enhancement—Burden Of Proof Issues

F 2131.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements

See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.


F 2131.5 Refusal—Enhancement—Elements And Definitions

F 2131.5 Inst 1 Willfully: Separate Enumeration

*Modify CC 2131, Element 3, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:

3. The defendant willfully refused to (submit to a test/ [or] to complete the test);

AND

4. The defendant did so willfully.

Points and Authorities

See FORECITE F 840.5 Inst 3.


F 2131.5 Inst 2 Willfully: Knowledge

Re: CC 2131, paragraph 5, see FORECITE F 820.5 Inst 1.


F 2131.5 Inst 3 “Chemical Test”—Tailor To Theory

*Modify CC 2131, Element 1, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:

1. A peace officer asked the defendant to submit to a chemical [blood] [breath] [urine] test to determine ((his/her) blood alcohol content/[or] whether (he/she) had consumed a drug);

Points and Authorities

Tailor To Theory—See FORECITE F 400.2 Inst 1; compare CALJIC 17.28.2, Element 1; CJ 17.29.


F 2131.5 Inst 4 Lawfulness Of Arrest And Probable Cause As Required Element

*Add to CC 2131 as Element 4, as follows:

[4. The defendant was:

A. Lawfully arrested;

AND

B. The arrest was made by a peace officer having probable cause to believe the defendant was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.]

Points and Authorities

This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]

The CALCRIM Deficiency—The Bench Notes to CALCRIM 2131 quotes VC 23612(a)(1)(C) as follows: “If there is a factual issue as to whether the defendant was lawfully arrested or whether the officer had reasonable cause to believe the defendant was under the influence, give bracketed element 4.”

However, the bracketed element 4 appears to have been omitted from the instruction.

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 2131.6 Refusal—Enhancement—Defense Theories

F 2131.6 Inst 1 Willfully: Balance

See FORECITE F 820.3 Inst 2.


F 2131.6 Inst 2 Pinpoint Instruction: Failure To Understand Duty To Submit To Testing Or Consequences Of Refusal

*Add to CC 2131 as follows:

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s refusal to submit to the testing was willful. The defendant contends that (his/her) refusal to do so was not willful because as a result of ______________ <e.g., head trauma>, (he/she) [didn’t understand the duty to submit to testing] [or] [the consequences of refusing to take the test]. The prosecution must prove either that:

1. The defendant understood his duty to submit and the consequences of refusal;

OR

2. (His/Her) failure to understand was caused by [impairment from voluntary alcohol use] [_______________ <other cause attributable to defendant’s volitional conduct e.g., refusal to listen to admonition >] as opposed to ______________ <e.g., head trauma>.

[Insert or cross-reference causation instructions if appropriate.]

Points and Authorities

This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]

Right To Pinpoint Instruction Relating Defense Theory To Prosecution’s Burden Of Proof—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.

Failure To Understand Duty Or Consequences Of Refusal—See Hughey v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 235 CA3d 752, 760; see also CC 2131, Related Issues.

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 2131.7 Refusal—Enhancement—Preliminary Fact Issues[Reserved]


F 2131.8 Refusal—Enhancement—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity[Reserved]


F 2131.9 Refusal—Enhancement—Lesser Offense Issues [Reserved]

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