Section 3518 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

“not guilty” in the blank/circle the words “not guilty”/check the
box for “not guilty”) for both the greater crime and the lesser
crime.
5. If all of you agree that the People have not proved that the
defendant is guilty of the greater crime, but all of you cannot
agree on a verdict for the lesser crime, (write “not guilty” in the
blank/circle the words “not guilty”/check the box for “not guilty”)
for the greater crime, then sign, date, and return the form. Do
not (write/circle/check) anything for the lesser crime, and inform
me only that you cannot reach an agreement about that crime.]
Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must
prove it beyond a reasonable doubt [unless I specifically tell you
otherwise].
New January 2006; Revised August 2006, June 2007, February 2012, August 2012,
February 2015, March 2024
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
If lesser included crimes are not charged separately and the jury receives only one
verdict form for each count, the court should use CALCRIM No. 3518 instead of
this instruction. For separately charged greater and lesser included offenses, use
CALCRIM No. 3519.
In all cases in which one or more lesser included offenses are submitted to the jury,
whether charged or not, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the applicable
procedures. (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870,
960 P.2d 1094] [duty to instruct on lesser included offenses]; People v. Dewberry
(1959) 51 Cal.2d 548, 555–557 [334 P.2d 852] [duty to instruct that if jury has
reasonable doubt of greater offense, must acquit of that charge]; People v. Fields
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 309–310 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 282, 914 P.2d 832] [duty to instruct
that jury cannot convict of a lesser included offense unless it has concluded that
defendant is not guilty of the greater offense]; Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31
Cal.3d 503, 519 [183 Cal.Rptr. 647, 646 P.2d 809] [duty to give jury opportunity to
render a verdict of partial acquittal on a greater offense], clarified in People v.
Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 826 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280] [no duty
to inquire about partial acquittal in absence of indication jury may have found
defendant not guilty of greater offense].)
In Stone v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 519, the Supreme Court suggested
that the trial court provide the jury with verdict forms of guilty/not guilty on each of
the charged and lesser included offenses. The court later referred to this “as a
judicially declared rule of criminal procedure.” (People v. Kurtzman (1988) 46
Cal.3d 322, 328 [250 Cal.Rptr. 244, 758 P.2d 572].) However, this is not a
POST-TRIAL: CONCLUDING
CALCRIM No. 3517
1085

mandatory procedure. (Ibid.) If the court chooses not to follow the procedure
suggested in Stone, the court may give CALCRIM No. 3518 in place of this
instruction.
Do not give this instruction for charges of murder or manslaughter; instead give the
appropriate homicide instruction for l