CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) Section 2002. If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963)
CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) § 2002
If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate
cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590–591 [35 Cal.Rptr.
401].) If the evidence indicates that there was only one cause of death, the court
should give the “direct, natural, and probable” language in the first bracketed
paragraph on causation. If there is evidence of multiple causes of death, the court
should also give the “substantial factor” instruction in the second bracketed
paragraph on causation. (See People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43
Cal.Rptr.2d 135]; People v. Pike (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 732, 746–747 [243
Cal.Rptr. 54].)
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “For the purpose of this instruction” if
the evidence shows an intent to defraud an entity or association rather than a natural
person. (Pen. Code, § 8.)
Related Instructions
CALCRIM No. 2002, Insurance Fraud: Vehicle Accident.
AUTHORITY
•
Elements. Pen. Code, § 192(c)(3).
•
Causation. People v. Rodriguez (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 433, 440 [8 Cal.Rptr.
863].
•
Intent to Defraud—Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127
Cal.Rptr.2d 770]; People v. Gaul-Alexander (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 735, 745 [38
Cal.Rptr.2d 176].
•
Intent to Defraud Entity. Pen. Code, § 8.
RELATED ISSUES
Does Not Preclude Murder Charge
Section 192(c)(3) of the Penal Code states that: “This paragraph does not prevent
prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.”
Probable and Natural Consequences of a Conspiracy
A nondriver coconspirator may be liable for a death that results from a conspiracy
to commit a vehicular collision for insurance fraud under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. (People v. Superior Court (Shamis) (1998) 58 Cal.App.4th
833, 842–843 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 388].)
SECONDARY SOURCES
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against the
Person, §§ 262–263.
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, § 222.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,
Challenges to Crimes, § 140.04, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person,
§ 142.02[2][c], [4] (Matthew Bender).
HOMICIDE
CALCRIM No. 594
365
This section of the CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) establishes legal requirements and provisions that apply to specific circumstances in California law.
This section applies when the specific conditions outlined in the statute are met. The exact applicability depends on the facts of each situation.
Penalties vary based on the specific violation and circumstances. They may include fines, imprisonment, or other legal consequences as specified in the California code.
Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis
| Feature | FlawFinder | Westlaw | LexisNexis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly price | $19 - $99 | $133 - $646 | $153 - $399 |
| Contract | None | 1-3 year min | 1-6 year min |
| Hidden fees | $0, always | Up to $469/search | $25/mo + per-doc |
| Police SOPs | ✓ 310+ departments | ✗ | ✗ |
| Zero-hallucination AI | ✓ CitationGuard | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cancel | One click | Termination fees | No option to cancel |
In simple terms: CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) Section 2002. If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963). This means people must follow this rule, and breaking it can lead to criminal penalties.