Section 250 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

251. Union of Act and Intent: Specific Intent or Mental State
The crime[s] [(and/or) other allegation[s]] charged in this case require[s]
proof of the union, or joint operation, of act and wrongful intent.
For you to find a person guilty of the crime[s] (in this case/ of
<insert name[s] of alleged offense[s] and count[s], e.g.,
burglary, as charged in Count 1> [or to find the allegation[s] of
<insert name[s] of enhancement[s]> true]), that person must
not only intentionally commit the prohibited act [or intentionally fail to
do the required act], but must do so with a specific (intent/ [and/or]
mental state). The act and the specific (intent/ [and/or] mental state)
required are explained in the instruction for that crime [or allegation].
<Repeat next paragraph as needed>
[The specific (intent/ [and/or] mental state) required for the crime of
<insert name[s] of alleged offense[s] e.g., burglary> is
<insert specific intent>.]
New January 2006; Revised August 2006, June 2007, April 2008
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the union of act and specific intent
or mental state. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 220 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385,
926 P.2d 365].) This instruction must be given if the crime requires a specific
mental state, such as knowledge or malice, even if the crime is classified as a
general intent offense.
Do not give this instruction if the case involves only general-intent offenses that do
not require any specific mental state. (See CALCRIM No. 250, Union of Act and
Intent: General Intent.) If the case involves both offenses requiring a specific intent
or mental state and offenses that do not, the court may give CALCRIM No. 252,
Union of Act and Intent: General and Specific Intent Together, in place of this
instruction.
The court should specify for the jury which offenses are specific-intent offenses by
inserting the names of the offenses and count numbers where indicated in the
second paragraph of the instruction. (See People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 118
[60 Cal.Rptr. 234, 429 P.2d 586].) The court may use the final optional paragraph if
it deems it helpful, particularly in cases with multiple counts.
If the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit a
general-intent offense, the court must instruct on the specific intent required for
aiding and abetting or conspiracy. (See People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111,
1117–1118 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 24 P.3d 1210]; People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222
65

252. Union of Act and Intent: General and Specific Intent Together
The crime[s] [(and/or) other allegation[s]] charged in Count[s]
require[s] proof of the union, or joint operation, of act and wrongful
intent.
The following crime[s] [and allegation[s]] require[s] general criminal
intent:
<insert name[s] of alleged offense[s] and
enhancement[s] and count[s], e.g., battery, as charged in Count 1>. For you
to find a person guilty of (this/these) crime[s] [or to find the allegation[s]
true],