Section 2825 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

defendant does not need to personally prepare the document or even be
present when the document is completed.]
New January 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
The statute states that the defendant’s acts must be “willful.” (Rev. & Tax. Code,
§ 19705(a)(2).) As used in the tax code, “willful” means that the defendant must act
“in voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.” (People v. Hagen (1998)
19 Cal.4th 652, 666 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967 P.2d 563].) The committee has chosen
to use this description of the meaning of the term in place of the word “willful” to
avoid confusion with other instructions that provide a different definition of
“willful.”
Element 3 contains a knowledge requirement. The statute does not specifically
require that the defendant knew that the return contained false information. (Rev. &
Tax. Code, § 19705(a)(2).) However, federal pattern jury instructions for the
analogous federal crime (26 U.S.C., § 7206(2)) require that the defendant must have
known that the document was false even though the federal statute also does not
explicitly contain a knowledge requirement. (Pattern Jury Instructions of the District
Judges Association of the Eleventh Circuit, Offense Instruction No. 95 (2003);
Pattern Jury Instructions of the District Judges Association of the Fifth Circuit,
Criminal Cases, Instruction No. 2.97 (2001); but see Pattern Jury Instructions of the
Committee on Model Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit, Criminal Cases,
Instruction No. 9.38 (2003) [knowledge not specifically required, defendant must
assist in preparing “false” return].) Element 3 is included for the court to give at its
discretion. The committee recommends that the court review current federal case
law, as advised in People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 967
P.2d 563].
In the definition of “material,” give the bracketed sentence beginning with
“Although the People must prove that the statement was material” if requested.
(Edwards v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 375 F.2d 862, 865, overruled on other
grounds in United States v. Bishop (1973) 412 U.S. 346, 351, fn. 3 [93 S.Ct. 2008,
36 L.Ed.2d 941]; see also United States v. Ballard (8th Cir. 1976) 535 F.2d 400,
404; Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal (5th ed.) §§ 67.15, 67.19.)
Defenses—Instructional Duty
If there is sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a
good faith belief that his or her conduct was legal, the court has a sua sponte duty
to give the instruction on this defense. (People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 660
CALCRIM No. 2825
TAX CRIMES
688