Section 3101 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

CALCRIM No. 3101, Prior Conviction: Bifurcated Trial.
If the defendant is charged with a prison prior, the court must determine whether the
jury should decide if the defendant served a separate prison term for the conviction
and whether the defendant remained free of prison custody for the “washout”
period. (Pen. Code, § 667.5(a) & (b).) The Commentary below discusses these
issues further. If the court chooses to submit these issues to the jury, give
CALCRIM No. 3102, Prior Conviction: Prison Prior, with this instruction.
If the court determines that there is a factual issue regarding the prior conviction
that must be submitted to the jury, give CALCRIM No. 3103: Prior Conviction:
Factual Issue for Jury, with this instruction. The Commentary below discusses this
issue further.
Give the bracketed phrase “for which judgment was entered” if there is more than
one prior conviction charged.
On request, the court should give the limiting instruction that begins with “Consider
the evidence presented on this allegation only when deciding.” (See People v.
Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 182, fn. 7 [228 Cal.Rptr. 25, 720 P.2d 913].) There
is no sua sponte duty to give the limiting instruction, and the defense may request
that no limiting instruction be given. (See People v. Griggs (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th
1137, 1139 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 380].)
The court must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury will indicate
whether the prior conviction has been proved. (Pen. Code, § 1158.)
AUTHORITY
•
Statutory Authority. Pen. Code, §§ 1025, 1158.
•
Bifurcation. People v. Calderon (1994) 9 Cal.4th 69, 77–79 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 333,
885 P.2d 83]; People v. Cline (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1334–1336 [71
Cal.Rptr.2d 41].
•
Judge Determines Whether Defendant Is Person Named in Documents. Pen.
Code, § 1025(c); People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 25 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 572,
18 P.3d 2]; People v. Garcia (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165 [132
Cal.Rptr.2d 694].
•
Limiting Instruction on Prior Conviction. See People v. Valentine (1986) 42
Cal.3d 170, 182, fn. 7 [228 Cal.Rptr. 25, 720 P.2d 913]; People v. Griggs (2003)
110 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1139 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 380].
•
Disputed Factual Issues. See People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 136 [226
Cal.Rptr.3d 379, 407 P.3d 55]; Descamps v. United States (2013) 570 U.S. 254,
268–70 [133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438]; Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530
U.S. 466, 490 [120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435].
•
Three-Strikes Statutes. Pen. Code, §§ 667(e), 1170.12.
•
Five-Year Enhancement for Serious Felony. Pen. Code, § 667(a)(1).
•
Three-Year Enhancement for Prison Prior If Violent Felony. Pen. Code,
§ 667.5(a).
CALCRIM No. 3100
ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS
816