Section 2963 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

<insert name of person under 21> showed the
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
Business and Professions Code section 25660(c) 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 (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 478–481 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 49 P.3d 1067]
[discussing affirmative defenses generally and the burden of proof].) Give the
bracketed word “unlawfully” in the first sentence and element 1, and the bracketed
paragraph on the defense.
In In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254, 280 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 95 P.3d 906], the
Supreme Court held that, for a prosecution under Business and Professions Code
section 25658(a), the defendant may assert as a defense a good faith belief that the
CALCRIM No. 2963
VANDALISM, LOITERING, AND TRESPASS
758