SERIES 3300 NON-CALCRIM DEFENSES
F 3306 Possession Based Offenses—Defense Theories
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 3306 Inst 1 (a & b) Possession: Immediate And Knowing Control Required
F 3306 Inst 2 (a-e) Possession: Access Alone Not Sufficient
F 3306 Inst 3 Mere Presence Not Sufficient For Possession
F 3306 Inst 4 Mere Presence In Vehicle Not Sufficient For Possession
F 3306 Inst 5 Constructive Possession: Premises Shared By More Than One Person
F 3306 Inst 6 Possession: Ownership Or Occupancy Not Sufficient
F 3306 Inst 7 Possession: Passenger In Vehicle Not Sufficient
F 3306 Inst 8 Constructive Possession: Participation In Drug Transaction Does Not Prove Possession Of Drugs Or Money Possessed By Others
F 3306 Inst 9 Possession: Accidental Possession Negates Intent
F 3306 Inst 10 Possession: Definition Of Control
F 3306 Inst 11 Possession: Impact Of Intoxication On Knowledge Element
Return to Series 3300 Table of Contents.
F 3306 Inst 1 (a & b) Possession: Immediate And Knowing Control Required
Alternative a:
To prove the defendant possessed the ___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed> the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
1. Had knowing physical possession of the ___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed>;
OR
2. By word or act the defendant knowingly [assumed control of] [exercised control over] the ___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed>.
Alternative b:
A person does not possess an object unless he or she has:
1. Knowing physical possession of the object; or
2. Immediate and knowing control over the object.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Tailoring To Facts—The CALCRIM instructions on possession generally fail to tailor the legal principle to the specific facts such as the party and object at issue. (See FORECITE F 400.2 Inst 1.)
Specification Of Prosecution Burden—The legal requirements concerning possession should be related to the prosecution’s burden of proof. (See FORECITE F 417.5 Inst 2.)
Right To Control Not Sufficient—A right to control an object is not alone sufficient to establish that the defendant exercised “intentional direction over” it. (See Armstrong v. Superior Court (1990) 217 CA3d 535, 539.) For example, a verbal contract to purchase personal property may be sufficient to give the purchasing party a legal right to control the property. However, the purchasing party does not have possession of the property until he or she exercises “intentional direction” over it. (Ibid.; see also People v. Barnes (1997) 57 CA4th 552, 556-57 [agreement to purchase was not possession because the “right to control” was not “knowingly exercise[d]”]; People v. Newman (1971) 5 C3d 48, 53 [constructive possession requires that the contraband be immediately accessible to the defendant in a place under his or her control]; People v. Austin (1994) 23 CA4th 1596, 1608-09; compare People v. Konrad (MI 1995) 536 NW2d 517, 522-23 [constructive possession proven where defendant paid for drugs and arranged for agent to deliver drugs to defendant].)
In other words, the defendant must exercise a restraining or directing influence over the object. (Jason v. State (MD 1970) 262 A2d 774, 780; see also Aaronson, Maryland Criminal Jury Instructions and Commentary 4.76 [Narcotics—Possession (Actual And Constructive)] ¶ 6 (Lexis, 2nd ed. 1988).) Or as defined in Washington, the defendant must assume dominion and control over the object which may be immediately exercised. (See Washington Pattern Jury Instructions—Criminal, WPIC 133.52 [Possession—Weapon—Definition] 3d sent. (West, 2nd ed. 1994); see also State v. Rieger (WA 1981) 637 P2d 236.)
Possession Must Be Knowing—Knowledge is an additional element above and beyond control because, otherwise, innocent, unknowing possession could be punished. (See e.g., People v. Jeffers (1996) 41 CA4th 917, 922.)
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 3306 Inst 2 (a-e) Possession: Access Alone Not Sufficient
Alternative a [CC 1750, paragraph 5, sentence 2 Format]:
Mere presence near or access to [property] [and object] [___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed>] is not, by itself, sufficient to prove control over that [property] [and object] [___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed>].
Alternative b:
Access to the ___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed> does not, by itself, mean that the defendant had [control over] [possession of] the ___________ <item or object alleged to have been possessed>.
Alternative c:
Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over or possession of that object.
[See Goodlow v. Superior Court (1980) 101 CA3d 969, 975; State v. Sizemore (NM 1993) 858 P2d 420, 424; cf. Virginia Model Jury Instructions—Criminal 22.330 [Possession—Definition] ¶ 1, last sentence (Lexis, 2000); Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases F.S. 893.13(1)(a) [Drug Abuse—Sale, Purchase, Manufacture, Delivery, Or Possession With Intent] p. 291 (Florida Bar, 1997).]
Alternative d:
A defendant must be shown to have knowingly been in possession of __________. The mere fact that a person is near a location or had access to a place where __________ is found is not, by itself, sufficient proof of possession.
[See Goodlow v. Superior Court (1980) 101 CA3d 969, 975; State v. Sizemore (NM 1993) 858 P2d 420, 424; see also South Dakota Pattern Jury Instructions—Criminal, SDCL 1-11-8 [Possession—What Constitutes] ¶ 2 (State Bar of South Dakota, 2000).]
Alternative e:
Mere proximity to a substance is insufficient proof of possession. There must be additional evidence of the defendant’s knowledge and control. Such knowledge and control may be established by circumstantial evidence, but such circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, and proof amounting to mere probability or even strong suspicion is insufficient.
[See Johnson v. State (OK 1988) 764 P2d 530, 535; see also Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions—Criminal, OUJI-CR 6-11 [Drug Possession Defined] (Oklahoma Center for Criminal Justice, 2nd ed. 1996).]
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Mere Proximity Not Sufficient To Prove Possession – “To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. [Citations.] Possession may be shared with others. [Citation]. But mere proximity to the weapon, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence of possession. [Citation.]” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 CA4th 1410, 1417; see also People v. Land (1994) 30 CA4th 220, 223-24.)
Accordingly, “care should be taken to ensure that the instructions do not erroneously leave the impression that mere proximity to the drugs is sufficient to establish constructive possession.” (Washington Pattern Jury Instructions—Criminal, WPIC 50.03 [Possession—Definition], comment (West, 2nd ed. 1994).) Without clarifying instructions the jury may not understand that equal access by two or more persons fails to establish the knowing dominion and control which is required for possession. (See, e.g., CALCRIM 1750, paragraph 5, sentence 2.)
For example, in Goodlow v. Superior Court (1980) 101 CA3d 969, 975, the court emphasized that opportunity of access is not the equivalent of dominion and control necessary to establish constructive possession. The court relied upon a well established line of cases to support its conclusion that opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found, without more, will not support a finding of unlawful possession. (Ibid.; see also U.S. v. Highsmith (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F3d 1141 [access alone insufficient to establish constructive possession]; U.S. v. Kelso (9th Cir. 1991) 942 F2d 680 [same]; also State v. Harney (NE 1991) 466 NW2d 540, 543-44; State v. Sizemore (NM 1993) 858 P2d 420, 424; State v. Brietag (NM 1989) 772 P2d 898, 900.)
Therefore, when appropriate, a supplement to the definition of constructive possession should be given so the jury understands that access alone does not establish possession.
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.
RESEARCH NOTES:
Annotation, Conviction Of Possession Of Illicit Drugs Found In Premises Of Which Defendant Was In Nonexclusive Possession, 56 ALR3d 948.
Annotation, Conviction Of Possession Of Illicit Drugs Found In Automobile Of Which Defendant Was Not Sole Occupant, 57 ALR3d 1319.
Annotation, Drug Abuse: What Constitutes Illegal Constructive Possession Under 21 USC 841(a)(1), Prohibiting Possession Of A Controlled Substance With Intent To Manufacture, Distribute, Or Dispense The Same, 87 ALR Fed 309.
Annotation, What Constitutes “Constructive” Possession Of Stolen Property To Establish Requisite Element Of Possession Supporting Offense Of Receiving Stolen Property, 30 ALR4th 488.
F 3306 Inst 3 Mere Presence Not Sufficient For Possession
However, mere presence near an object, without more, is insufficient to support a finding of possession.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Mere Presence Not Sufficient – “To establish constructive possession, the prosecution must prove a defendant knowingly exercised a right to control the prohibited item, either directly or through another person. [Citations.] Possession may be shared with others. [Citation]. But mere proximity to the weapon, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence of possession. [Citation.]” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 CA4th 1410, 1417; see also People v. Land (1994) 30 CA4th 220, 223-24.)
Similarly, in Goodlow v. Superior Court (1980) 101 CA3d 969, 975, the court emphasized that opportunity of access is not the equivalent of dominion and control necessary to establish constructive possession. The court relied upon a well established line of cases to support its conclusion that opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found, without more, will not support a finding of unlawful possession. (Ibid.; see also U.S. v. Highsmith (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F3d 1141 [even though defendant had access to and dealt drugs from his cohort’s bedroom where the gun was found, this was insufficient evidence of constructive possession absent evidence that the defendant knew of the firearm]; U.S. v. Vallejo (9th Cir. 2001) 237 F3d 1008, 1024 [burden to show defendant had knowledge that the car he was driving contained drugs; correct jury instruction was available in the 9th Circuit Model Instructions]; U.S. v. Ramirez (9th Cir. 1999) 176 F3d 1179 [possession not established by the defendant’s mere presence in a drug-laden vehicle, or mere knowledge of the presence of the contraband]; U.S. v. Kelso (9th Cir. 1991) 942 F2d 680 [access to gun is necessary but insufficient to establish constructive possession].)
Hence, “mere presence near the stolen property in and of itself is insufficient evidence of possession to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property.” (In re Anthony J. (2004) 117 CA4th 718, 728; see also People v. Land (1994) 30 CA4th 220, 223-224.)
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.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24g.
F 3306 Inst 4 Mere Presence In Vehicle Not Sufficient For Possession
Alternative a:
Merely being a passenger in a vehicle, without more, is insufficient to support a finding of possession of [the vehicle] [an object in the vehicle not otherwise proven to be under the passenger’s dominion and control].
Alternative b:
The mere presence of a non-owner passenger in an automobile containing _____________ <insert name of proscribed item> is not alone sufficient to prove possession. The State must introduce additional evidence which convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of both the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the _____________ <insert name of proscribed item> and the defendant’s unlawful possession of the ____________ <insert name of proscribed item>.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request – [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction – See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Basis For Instruction – A non-owner passenger in a car should not be constructively presumed to be in possession of everything in the car. (In re Anthony J. (2004) 117 CA4th 718, 728; People v. Land (1994) 30 CA4th 220, 223; Paul v. Commonwealth (KY 1988) 765 SW2d 24, 26; see also Nguyen v. State (AL 1991) 580 So2d 122, 123 [mere presence of defendant in automobile containing contraband is not sufficient in and of itself to support conviction for possession of a controlled substance]; Hishaw v. State (OK 1977) 568 P2d 643, 645 [evidence insufficient to establish possession where marijuana cigarette found on floor adjacent to feet of defendant, a passenger in the automobile]; see also FORECITE F 3306 Inst 2 and Inst 3.)
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.
Research Notes
Annotation, Conviction Of Possession Of Illicit Drugs Found In Automobile Of Which Defendant Was Not Sole Occupant, 57 ALR3d 1319.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24h.
F 3306 Inst 5 Constructive Possession: Premises Shared By More Than One Person
When the premises are shared by more than one person, neither proximity to contraband in the premises nor association with a person having control of the contraband are sufficient to establish possession. However, these factors may be considered, in conjunction with other evidence, in determining, if you can, whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had dominion and control over the contraband.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Basis For Instruction – “It is fundamental to our system of criminal law that guilt is individual … [T]hat means that there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding, as to each defendant, that he or she had possession of the [contraband] …” (Delgado v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1964) 327 F2d 641, 642; see also U.S. v. Earl (9th Cir. 1994) 27 F3d 423.) Hence, when the premises are shared by more than one person, the jury must find, based on rational inferences from the evidence, that it was the defendant who had dominion and control over the contraband. (See People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 CA4th 1410, 1417 [presence where gun was found not sufficient for constructive possession]; Goodlow v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 101 CA3d 969, 975; see also U.S. v. Highsmith (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F3d 1141 [even though defendant had access to and dealt drugs from his cohort’s bedroom where the gun was found, this was insufficient evidence of constructive possession absent evidence that the defendant knew of the firearm].)
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.
RESEARCH NOTES
Annotation, Conviction Of Possession Of Illicit Drugs Found In Premises Of Which Defendant Was In Nonexclusive Possession, 56 ALR3d 948.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24c.
F 3306 Inst 6 Possession: Ownership Or Occupancy Not Sufficient
Ownership or occupancy of the [premises] [vehicle] in which a firearm is found does not create a presumption that the owner or occupant either knowingly or intentionally possessed such firearm. Such ownership or occupancy is a fact which may be considered with other evidence.
[See Burchette v. Commonwealth (VA 1992) 425 SE2d 81, 83-84; see also U.S. v. Pennington (5th Cir. 1994) 20 F3d 593, 598; Virginia Model Jury Instructions—Criminal 18.810 [Actual And Constructive Possession Of Firearm—Definition] ¶ 3 (Lexis, 2000).]
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Ownership Or Occupancy Not Sufficient To Prove Possession – Mere ownership or occupancy of the property where the contraband is found is not alone sufficient to convict. (See, e.g., People v. Sifuentes (5/27/2011) 195 CA4th 1410, 1417; Goodlow v. Sup.Ct. (1980) 101 CA3d 969, 975.) “Proof of possession of an item requires more than proof of control over the premises where the item was found or control over the vehicle in which the item was found.” (Hubbard, Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases in South Carolina: Defendants Requested Instructions Inst. 2.1 [Possession/Mere Control Of Premises Or Vehicle] p. 196 (South Carolina CLE, 1994); see also State v. Flurry (MS 1988) 536 So2d 1340 [evidence that son had exercised dominion and control over marijuana plants located on mother’s property was insufficient to convict mother of manufacturing marijuana; mother could not be convicted based solely upon her constructive possession as owner of property]; State v. Janson (MO 1998) 964 SW2d 552, 555 [ownership or occupancy alone is insufficient to prove knowing possession of drugs located on premises or in vehicle]; State v. Layman (UT 1998) 953 P2d 782, 787-88 [same]; State v. Fox (UT 1985) 709 P2d 316, 319 [same]; Burchette v. Commonwealth (VA 1992) 425 SE2d 81, 83-84 [same].)
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 FORECITECG 13.
RESEARCH NOTES
Annotation, Statutory Presumption Of Possession Of Weapon By Occupants Of Place Or Vehicle Where it Was Found, 87 ALR3d 949.
F 3306 Inst 7 Possession: Passenger In Vehicle Not Sufficient
See FORECITE F 3306 Inst 4 (a & b).
F 3306 Inst 8 Constructive Possession: Participation In Drug Transaction Does Not Prove Possession Of Drugs Or Money Possessed By Others
Participation in a drug transaction does not, by itself, mean that a person possessed either the money or drugs involved in that transaction.
[Adapted from CC 1750, paragraph 5, sentence 2.]
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Basis For Instruction—In People v. Howard (1995) 33 CA4th 1407, 1418-20, the court held that the defendant could not be found to have constructively possessed money which the co-defendant brought to the transaction for the purpose of purchasing drugs. (See also, U.S. v. Kearns (9th Cir. 1995) 61 F3d 1422 [co-conspirator’s brief touching and smelling of marijuana in car trunk insufficient to establish possession].) Similarly, in People v. Tambini (1969) 275 CA2d 757, 764-66, it was held that the defendant who put a buyer and seller together for a finder’s fee never possessed the marijuana which was sold.
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.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24 n7.
F 3306 Inst 9 Possession: Accidental Possession Negates Intent
If the defendant acquired possession of an illegal object through misfortune or accident and did not intentionally exercise control over the object, the defendant cannot be convicted of illegal possession of the object. If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant intentionally exercised control over the object, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find [him] [her] not guilty.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
No Criminal Liability For Accidental Possession—If the defendant could be held criminally liable for possession of an illegal item acquired through misfortune or accident without any intent to exercise control over or to have custody of the item, the defendant would be strictly liable for the crime even under innocent circumstances. Accordingly, in order to convict the defendant of a possession crime, the jury must find the existence of the requisite criminal intent to exercise control over or to have custody of the item. (People v. Jeffers (1996) 41 CA4th 917, 922.)
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.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24d.
F 3306 Inst 10 Possession: Definition Of Control
For the purposes of this instruction, the term “control” means the power to produce or dispose of the object in question.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Defense Theory Pinpoint Instruction—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Control Defined In Terms Of Power—The above definition of “control” was set forth in State v. Montoya (NM 1979) 594 P2d 1190, 1192 [92 NM 734]. This comports with the definition utilized in other contexts e.g., the “power or authority to check or restrain.” (See Gaines v. State (IN 1974) 316 NE2d 842, 844 [161 Ind.App. 632]; see also State v. Hogue (HI 1971) 486 P2d 403, 408 [52 Haw. 660] [definition of “ownership or control” for purposes of prohibition was “the power of distribution to others”].)
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 FORECITECG 13.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24e.
F 3306 Inst 11 Possession: Impact Of Intoxication On Knowledge Element
See FORECITE F 3426 Inst 5.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.24 n1.