Section 1600 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

•
Fear Defined. Pen. Code, § 212; see People v. Collins (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th
333, 340–341 [279 Cal.Rptr.3d 407]; People v. Cuevas (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
689, 698 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 529] [victim must actually be afraid].
•
Immediate Presence Defined. People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 626–627
[276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376].
•
Intent. People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 52–53 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d
468], overruled on other grounds in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834,
fn. 3 [226 Cal.Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99]; see Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1984)
159 Cal.App.3d 821, 826 [205 Cal.Rptr. 750] [same intent as theft].
•
Intent to Deprive Owner of Main Value. See People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th
49, 57–58 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1] [in context of theft]; People v.
Zangari (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1447 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 250] [same].
•
Possession Defined. People v. Bekele (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1461 [39
Cal.Rptr.2d 797], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Rodriguez (1999)
20 Cal.4th 1, 13–14 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413, 971 P.2d 618].
•
Robbery of Store Employee or Contractor. People v. Frazer (2003) 106
Cal.App.4th 1105, 1115–1117 [131 Cal.Rptr.2d 319]; People v. Gilbeaux (2003)
111 Cal.App.4th 515, 521–522 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 835].
•
Constructive Possession by Employee. People v. Scott (2009) 45 Cal.4th 743,
751 [89 Cal.Rptr.3d 213, 200 P.3d 837].
•
Constructive Possession by Subcontractor/Janitor. People v. Gilbeaux (2003) 111
Cal.App.4th 515, 523 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 835].
•
Constructive Possession by Person With Special Relationship. People v. Weddles
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1369–1370 [109 Cal.Rptr.3d 479].
•
Felonious Taking Not Satisfied by Theft by False Pretense. People v. Williams
(2013) 57 Cal.4th 776, 784–789 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 81, 305 P.3d 1241].
•
Constructive Possession and Immediate Presence of Funds in Account of
Robbery Victims Using ATM. People v. Mullins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 594, 603
[228 Cal.Rptr.3d 198].
COMMENTARY
The instruction includes definitions of “possession,” “fear,” and “immediate
presence” because those terms have meanings in the context of robbery that are
technical and may not be readily apparent to jurors. (See People v. McElheny (1982)
137 Cal.App.3d 396, 403 [187 Cal.Rptr. 39]; People v. Pitmon (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 38, 52 [216 Cal.Rptr. 221].)
Possession was defined in the instruction because either actual or constructive
possession of property will satisfy this element, and this definition may not be
readily apparent to jurors. (People v. Bekele (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1461 [39
Cal.Rptr.2d 797] [defining possession], disapproved on other grounds in People v.
Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 13–14 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 413, 971 P.2d 618]; see also
People v. Nguyen (2000) 24 Cal.4th 756, 761, 763 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 14 P.3d
ROBBERY AND CARJACKING
CALCRIM No. 1600
1111

221] [robbery victim must have actual or constructive possession of property taken;
disapproving People v. Mai (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 117, 129