Section 2670 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

excessive force is an issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that
the defendant is not guilty of the offense charged, or any lesser included offense in
which lawful performance is an element, if the defendant used reasonable force in
response to excessive force. (People v. Olguin (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 39, 46–47
[173 Cal.Rptr. 663].) On request, the court must instruct that the prosecution has the
burden of proving the lawfulness of the arrest beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v.
Castain (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 138, 145 [175 Cal.Rptr. 651].) If lawful
performance is an issue, give the bracketed paragraph on lawful performance and
the appropriate portions of CALCRIM No. 2670, Lawful Performance: Peace
Offıcer.
The jury must determine whether the alleged victim is a peace officer. (People v.
Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 444–445 [250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].) The
court may instruct the jury on the appropriate definition of “peace officer” from the
statute (e.g., “a Garden Grove Regular Police Officer and a Garden Grove Reserve
Police Officer are peace officers”). (Ibid.) However, the court may not instruct the
jury that the alleged victim was a peace officer as a matter of law (e.g., “Officer
Reed was a peace officer”). (Ibid.) If the alleged victim is a police officer, give the
bracketed sentence that begins with “A person employed as a police officer.” If the
alleged victim is another type of peace officer, give the bracketed sentence that
begins with “A person employed by.”
“Peace officer,” as used in this statute, means “as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 830.1, subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 830.2, subdivision (a) of
Section 830.33, or Section 830.5.” (Pen. Code, § 190(b) & (c).)
The court may give the bracketed sentence that begins, “The duties of a
<insert title . . . .> include,” on request. The court may insert a
description of the officer’s duties such as “the correct service of a facially valid
search warrant.” (People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1222 [275 Cal.Rptr.
729, 800 P.2d 1159].)
Give the bracketed phrase “that is inherently deadly or one” and give the bracketed
definition of inherently deadly only if the object is a deadly weapon as a matter of
law. (People v. Stutelberg (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 314, 317–318 [240 Cal.Rptr.3d
156].)
The second sentence of the great bodily injury definition could result in error if the
prosecution improperly argues great bodily injury may be shown by greater than
minor injury alone. (Compare People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519,
533–535 [258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867] [the definition was reasonably susceptible to
prosecutor’s erroneous argument that the injury need only be greater than minor]
with People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 466 [260 Cal.Rptr.3d 86]
[upholding instructions containing great bodily injury definition as written].)
AUTHORITY
•
Second Degree Murder of a Peace Officer. Pen. Code, § 190(b) & (c).
•
Personally Used Deadly or Dangerous We