Section 420 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

Give the two final bracketed sentences on request. (See People v. Toledo-Corro
(1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 812, 820 [345 P.2d 529].)
Defenses—Instructional Duty
If there is sufficient evidence that the defendant withdrew from the alleged
conspiracy, the court has a sua sponte duty to give CALCRIM No. 420, Withdrawal
From Conspiracy.
AUTHORITY
•
Elements. Pen. Code, §§ 182(a), 183; People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403,
416 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 665, 975 P.2d 1071]; People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th
593, 600 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 909 P.2d 994]; People v. Liu (1996) 46
Cal.App.4th 1119, 1128 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 578].
•
Overt Act Defined. Pen. Code, § 184; People v. Saugstad (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d
536, 549–550 [21 Cal.Rptr. 740]; People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 549,
fn. 8 [134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 557 P.2d 75]; see People v. Brown (1991) 226
Cal.App.3d 1361, 1368 [277 Cal.Rptr. 309]; People v. Tatman (1993) 20
Cal.App.4th 1, 10–11 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 480].
•
Association Alone Not a Conspiracy. People v. Drolet (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 207,
218 [105 Cal.Rptr. 824]; People v. Toledo-Corro (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 812,
820 [345 P.2d 529].
•
Elements of Underlying Offense. People v. Cortez (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1223,
1238–1239 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 733, 960 P.2d 537]; People v. Fenenbock (1996) 46
Cal.App.4th 1688, 1706 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 608].
•
Two Specific Intents. People v. Miller (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 412, 423–426 [53
Cal.Rptr.2d 773], disapproved on other ground in People v. Cortez (1998) 18
Cal.4th 1223, 1239 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 733, 960 P.2d 537].
•
Unanimity on Specific Overt Act Not Required. People v. Russo (2001) 25
Cal.4th 1124, 1133–1135 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641].
•
Unanimity on Target Offenses of Single Conspiracy. People v. Diedrich (1982)
31 Cal.3d 263, 285–286 [182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 643 P.2d 971]; People v. Vargas
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506, 560–561, 564 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 210].
•
Penal Code Section 182 Refers to Crimes Under California Law Only. People v.
Zacarias (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 652, 660 [69 Cal.Rptr.3d 81].
COMMENTARY
It is sufficient to refer to coconspirators in the accusatory pleading as “persons
unknown.” (People v. Sacramento Butchers’ Protective Ass’n (1910) 12 Cal.App.
471, 483 [107 P. 712]; People v. Roy (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 459, 463 [59 Cal.Rptr.
636]; see 1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements,
§ 82.) Nevertheless, this instruction assumes the prosecution has named at least two
members of the alleged conspiracy, whether charged or not.
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on a lesser included target
CALCRIM No. 415
AIDING AND ABETTING
180

1131 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 578].) See also the Commentary section below.
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “You must all agree that at least one
overt act alleged” if multiple overt acts are alleged in connection with a single
conspiracy. (See People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1135–1136 [108
Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 25 P.3d 641].)
Give the bracketed se