Section 225 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

224. Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence
Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact
necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be
convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that
conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the
defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable
conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the
defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions
from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable
conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the
one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial
evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any
that are unreasonable.
New January 2006; Revised February 2013, March 2022
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on how to evaluate circumstantial
evidence if the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to
establish any element of the case. (People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [286
P.2d 1] [duty exists where circumstantial evidence relied on to prove any element,
including intent]; see People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 351–352 [233 Cal.Rptr.
368, 729 P.2d 802]; People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 167 [246 Cal.Rptr.
673, 753 P.2d 629].)
There is no sua sponte duty to give this instruction when the circumstantial evidence
is incidental to and corroborative of direct evidence. (People v. Malbrough (1961)
55 Cal.2d 249, 250–251 [10 Cal.Rptr. 632, 359 P.2d 30]; People v. Watson (1956)
46 Cal.2d 818, 831 [299 P.2d 243]; People v. Shea (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1257,
1270–1271 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 388].) This is so even when the corroborative
circumstantial evidence is essential to the prosecution’s case, e.g., when
corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony is required under Penal Code section
1111. (People v. Williams (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 869, 874 [208 Cal.Rptr. 790].)
If intent is the only element proved by circumstantial evidence, do not give this
instruction. Give CALCRIM No. 225, Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental
State. (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 849 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d
1280].)
AUTHORITY
•
Direct Evidence Defined. Evid. Code, § 410.
53

If the court is also instructing on a strict-liability offense, the court may wish to
modify this instruction to clarify the charges to which it applies.
AUTHORITY
•
Instructional Requirements. People v. Lizarraga (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 476,
481–482 [268 Cal.Rptr. 262] [when both specific intent and mental state are
elements].
•
Intent Manifested by Circumstances. Pen. Code, § 29.2(a).
•
Accept Reasonable Geistpretation of Circumstantial Evidence That Points Against
Specific Intent. People v. Yokum (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 245, 253–254 [302 P.2d
406], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Cook (1983)