Section 451 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction in any case where the
defendant is charged as the officer or agent of a corporation. (See Sea Horse Ranch,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 446, 456–458 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 681];
Otis v. Superior Court (1905) 148 Cal. 129, 131 [82 P. 853].) Repeat this instruction
for each offense, inserting the specific requirements for that offense.
If the prosecution alleges that the defendant personally committed some or all of the
acts alleged in the offense, give alternative A. If the prosecution’s theory is solely
that the defendant had control over the conduct alleged, give alternative B. If the
prosecution is pursing both theories of liability, do not give this instruction. Give
CALCRIM No. 451, Liability of Corporate Offıcers and Agents: Two Theories of
Liability.
Give element 3A if the alleged offense requires knowledge or general criminal intent
by the defendant. (See Sea Horse Ranch, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 456–458;
People v. Epstein (1931) 118 Cal.App. 7, 10 [4 P.2d 555].) Give element 3B if
specific intent is required. If a strict-liability offense is alleged, give only elements 1
and 2. (See People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1062 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d
348].)
Example
In Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 446 [30
Cal.Rptr.2d 681], the defendant was charged as the president of a corporation with
involuntary manslaughter based on a horse’s escape from the ranch that caused a
fatal vehicle accident. The instruction in such a case could read:
To prove that the defendant was a direct participant in the crime charged, the
People must prove that:

The defendant had the authority to control the maintenance of the fences.

The defendant failed to ensure that the fences were properly maintained.
AND

The defendant knew that horses had repeatedly escaped from the ranch
due to poor maintenance of the fences.
AUTHORITY
•
Liability of Corporate Officer or Agent. Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 446, 456–458 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 681]; see People v.
Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1062 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 348]; Otis v. Superior
Court (1905) 148 Cal. 129, 131 [82 P. 853].
SECONDARY SOURCES
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Introduction to Crimes,
§§ 117–118.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,
CALCRIM No. 450
AIDING AND ABETTING
206