CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) Section 3502. 51 Cal.3d 294, 321–322 [270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643].) See discussion below in Related Issues section. If the pros
CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) § 3502
51 Cal.3d 294, 321–322 [270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643].) See discussion below in
Related Issues section.
If the prosecution elects one act among many as the basis for the offense, do not
give this instruction. (People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1536 [70
Cal.Rptr.2d 878].) Give CALCRIM No. 3502, Unanimity: When Prosecution Elects
One Act Among Many.
Give the bracketed “sometime during the period” if the information alleges that the
charged event happened during a period of time rather than on a single date.
AUTHORITY
•
Unanimity Required. Cal. Const., art. I, § 16; People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th
1124, 1132 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641].
•
Instruction Required If Multiple Acts Could Support Single Charge. People v.
Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641]; People
v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 [182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 643 P.2d 971]; People
v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 218 [171 Cal.Rptr. 897]; People v. Alva
(1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 418, 426 [153 Cal.Rptr. 644].
•
Continuous Course of Conduct. People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 423
[133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1]; People v. Napoles (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th
108, 115–116 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 777]; People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d
212, 218 [171 Cal.Rptr. 897]; People v. Wolfe (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 177, 185
[7 Cal.Rptr.3d 483].
•
Acts Substantially Identical in Nature. People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68,
93 [279 Cal.Rptr. 276, 806 P.2d 1311]; see also People v. Champion (1995) 9
Cal.4th 879, 932 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93], questioned on unrelated
issue in People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 369, fn. 2 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296,
914 P.2d 846].
•
Aider and Abettor v. Direct Perpetrator. People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900,
1024–1026 [95 Cal.Rptr. 2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044]; People v. Beardslee (1991) 53
Cal.3d 68, 93 [279 Cal.Rptr. 276, 806 P.2d 1311].
•
Provocative-Act Murder. People v. Briscoe (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 568, 591 [112
Cal.Rptr.2d 401].
•
Conspiracy. People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1135–1136 [108
Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641].
•
Generic Testimony. People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 321–322 [270
Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643].
•
Must Instruct on Election by Prosecutor. People v. Melhado (1998) 60
Cal.App.4th 1529, 1536 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 878].
RELATED ISSUES
Cases Based on Generic Testimony
In People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294 [270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643], the
Court analyzed the due process concerns raised when a witness testifies to
POST-TRIAL: CONCLUDING
CALCRIM No. 3500
1071
This section of the CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) establishes legal requirements and provisions that apply to specific circumstances in California law.
This section applies when the specific conditions outlined in the statute are met. The exact applicability depends on the facts of each situation.
Penalties vary based on the specific violation and circumstances. They may include fines, imprisonment, or other legal consequences as specified in the California code.
Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis
| Feature | FlawFinder | Westlaw | LexisNexis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly price | $19 - $99 | $133 - $646 | $153 - $399 |
| Contract | None | 1-3 year min | 1-6 year min |
| Hidden fees | $0, always | Up to $469/search | $25/mo + per-doc |
| Police SOPs | ✓ 310+ departments | ✗ | ✗ |
| Zero-hallucination AI | ✓ CitationGuard | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cancel | One click | Termination fees | No option to cancel |
In simple terms: CALCRIM (Jury Instructions) Section 3502. 51 Cal.3d 294, 321–322 [270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643].) See discussion below in Related Issues section. If the pros. This means people must follow this rule, and breaking it can lead to criminal penalties.