Section 2962 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

defendant [or (his/her) employee/ [or] agent)] a government-
issued document, or what appeared to be a government-issued
document, as evidence of (his/her) age and identity;
AND
3. The defendant [or (his/her) employee/ [or] agent)] actually relied
on the document as evidence of
’s <insert name of
person under 21> age and identity.]
As used here, a government-issued document is a document [including a
driver’s license or an identification card issued to a person in the armed
forces] that has been, or appears to have been, issued by a government
agency and contains the person’s name, date of birth, description, and
picture. The government-issued document does not have to be genuine.
[An agent is a person who is authorized to act for the defendant in
dealings with other people.]
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did not actually rely on a government-issued document, or
what appeared to be a government-issued document, as evidence of
’s <insert name of person under 21> age and identity. If the
People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty
of this crime.]
New January 2006; Revised August 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
Give the bracketed sentence about calculating age if requested. (Fam. Code, § 6500;
In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 849–850 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d 391].)
Defenses—Instructional Duty
In In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254, 280 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 95 P.3d 906], the
Supreme Court held that, although the prosecution is not required to prove that the
defendant knew the age of the person he or she provided with alcohol, the defendant
may assert as a defense a good faith belief that the person was at least 21. The
burden is on the defendant to prove this defense. (Ibid.) The Court failed to state
what burden of proof applies. Following People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457,
478–481 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 49 P.3d 1067], the committee has drafted the
instruction on the premise that the defendant’s burden is to merely raise a
reasonable doubt about the defense, and the prosecution must then prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. If there is sufficient evidence, the
court has a sua sponte duty to give the bracketed paragraph on the defense. (Ibid.)
VANDALISM, LOITERING, AND TRESPASS
CALCRIM No. 2962
755

Business and Professions Code section 25660 provides a defense for those who rely
in good faith on bona fide evidence of age and identity. If there is sufficient
evidence, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense. (See People v.
Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 478–481 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 49 P.3d 1067].)
Give the bracketed word “unlawfully” in the first sentence and element 1, and the
bracketed paragraph on the defense.
AUTHORITY
•
Elements. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25658(a).
•
Alcoholic Beverage Defined. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 23004.