251. Union of Act and Intent: Specific Intent or Mental State

Every crime [or other allegation] charged in this case requires proof of the union, or joint operation, of act and wrongful intent [except for the crime[s] charged in Count[s] ].

In order to be guilty of the crime[s] of <insert name[s] of alleged offense[s]> [or the allegation[s] of <insert name[s] of enhancement[s]>], a person must not only intentionally commit the prohibited act [or intentionally fail to do the required act], but must do so with a specific intent or mental state. The act and the intent or mental state required are explained in the instruction for every crime [or allegation].

Bench Notes

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the union of act and specific intent or mental state. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 220 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365].) This instruction must be given if the crime requires a specific mental state, such as knowledge or malice, even if the crime is classified as a general intent offense.

Do not give this instruction if the case involves only general-intent offenses that do not require any specific mental state. (See CALCRIM No. 250, Union of Act and Intent: General Intent.) If the case involves both offenses requiring a specific intent or mental state and offenses that do not, the court may give CALCRIM No. 252, Union of Act and Intent: General and Specific Intent Together, in place of this instruction.

The court should specify for the jury which offenses are specific-intent offenses by inserting the names of the offenses where indicated in the second paragraph of the instruction. (See People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 118 [60 Cal.Rptr. 234, 429 P.2d 586].)

If the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit a general-intent offense, the court must instruct on the specific intent required for aiding and abetting or conspiracy. (See People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117-1118 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 24 P.3d 1210]; People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 586-587 [35 Cal.Rptr. 401].)

This instruction does not apply to criminal negligence or strict liability. If the defendant is also charged with a criminal negligence or strict liability offense, the court should give the appropriate Union of Act and Intent instruction: CALCRIM No. 253, Union of Act and Intent: Criminal Negligence, or CALCRIM No. 254, Union of Act and Intent: Strict-Liability Crime.

Defenses—Instructional Duty

Evidence of voluntary intoxication or mental impairment may be admitted to show that the defendant did not form the required mental state. (See People v. Ricardi (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 364].) The court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on these defenses; however, the trial court must give these instructions on request if supported by the evidence. (People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588]; see Defenses and Insanity, CALCRIM No. 3400 et seq.)

Authority

Statutory Authority. Pen. Code, § 20; see also Evid. Code, §§ 665, 668.

Instructional Requirements. People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 220 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365]; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 792-793 [36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892]; People v. Turner (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 174, 184 [99 Cal.Rptr. 186]; People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 117 [60 Cal.Rptr. 234, 429 P.2d 586].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, §§ 1-6.

3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 73, Defenses and Justifications, § 73.03 (Matthew Bender).

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.03[2][e] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140, Challenges to Crimes, § 140.02[1], [3] (Matthew Bender).

(New January 2006)