Section 3410 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

(People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 560 [134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 557 P.2d 75].)
“[I]f there is a question regarding the statute of limitations, the court may have to
require the jury to agree an overt act was committed within the limitations period.”
(People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1136, fn. 2 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d
641] [dicta].) See generally CALCRIM No. 3410, Statute of Limitations and
CALCRIM No. 3500, Unanimity.
Supplier of Goods or Services
A supplier of lawful goods or services put to an unlawful use is not liable for
criminal conspiracy unless he or she both knows of the illegal use of the goods or
services and intends to further that use. The latter intent may be established by
direct evidence of the supplier’s intent to participate, or by inference based on the
supplier’s special interest in the activity or the aggravated nature of the crime itself.
(People v. Lauria (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 471, 476–477, 482 [59 Cal.Rptr. 628].)
Wharton’s Rule
If the cooperation of two or more persons is necessary to commit a substantive
crime, and there is no element of an alleged conspiracy that is not present in the
substantive crime, then the persons involved cannot be charged with both the
substantive crime and conspiracy to commit the substantive crime. (People v.
Mayers (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 809, 815 [168 Cal.Rptr. 252] [known as Wharton’s
Rule or “concert of action” rule].)
SECONDARY SOURCES
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Elements, §§ 72–102.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[2][a][i], 85.03[2][d] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 141,
Conspiracy, Solicitation, and Attempt, §§ 141.01, 141.02, 141.10 (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 415
AIDING AND ABETTING
182

(Pen. Code, §§ 801.5, 803.) Courts interpreting the date of discovery provision have
imposed a due diligence requirement on investigative efforts. (People v. Zamora
(1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 561 [134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 557 P.2d 75]; People v. Lopez (1997)
52 Cal.App.4th 233, 246 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 511].) If one of the crimes listed in Section
803 is at issue, the court should instruct using the “discovery” language.
If there is a factual issue about when the prosecution started, the court should
instruct that the prosecution begins when (1) an information or indictment is filed,
(2) a complaint is filed charging a misdemeanor or infraction, (3) the defendant is
arraigned on a complaint that charges the defendant with a felony, or (4) an arrest
warrant or bench warrant is issued describing the defendant with the same degree of
particularity required for an indictment, information, or complaint. (Pen. Code,
§ 804.)
Limitation Periods
No limitations period (Pen. Code, § 799):
Embezzlement of public funds and crimes punishable by death or by life
imprisonment.
Six-year period (Pen. Code, § 800):
Felonies punishable for eight years or