2220. Driving With Suspended or Revoked License
The defendant is charged [in Count ______] with driving while (his/her) driver's license was (suspended/ [or] revoked).
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant drove a motor vehicle while (his/her) driver's license was (suspended/ [or] revoked) [for <insert basis for suspension or revocation>];
AND
2. When the defendant drove, (he/she) knew that (his/her) driver's license was (suspended/ [or] revoked).
[If the People prove that:
1. The California Department of Motor Vehicles mailed a notice to the defendant telling (him/her) that (his/her) driver's license had been (suspended/ [or] revoked);
2. The notice was sent to the most recent address reported to the department [or any more recent address reported by the person, a court, or a law enforcement agency];
AND
3. The notice was not returned to the department as undeliverable or unclaimed;
then you may, but are not required to, conclude that the defendant knew that (his/her) driver's license was (suspended/ [or] revoked).]
[If the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a court informed the defendant that (his/her) driver's license had been (suspended/ [or] revoked), you may but are not required to conclude that the defendant knew that (his/her) driver's license was (suspended/ [or] revoked).]
[A motor vehicle includes a (passenger vehicle/motorcycle/motor scooter/bus/school bus/commercial vehicle/truck tractor and trailer/ <insert other type of motor vehicle>).]
[The term motor vehicle is defined in another instruction to which you should refer.]
Bench Notes
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime.
In element 1, the court may insert the reason for the suspension or revocation unless the court has accepted a stipulation regarding this issue.
The two bracketed paragraphs that begin with "If the People prove" each explain rebuttable presumptions created by statute. (See Veh. Code, §§ 14601(a), 14601.1(a), 14602(c), 14601.5(c); Evid. Code, §§ 600-607.) The California Supreme Court has held that a jury instruction phrased as a rebuttable presumption in a criminal case creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption. (People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491, 497-505 [658 P.2d 1302].) In accordance with Roder, the bracketed paragraphs have been written as permissive inferences. In addition, it is only appropriate to instruct the jury on a permissive inference if there is no evidence to contradict the inference. (Evid. Code, § 640.) If any evidence has been introduced to support the opposite factual finding, then the jury "shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption." (Ibid.)
Therefore, the court must not give the bracketed paragraph that begins with "If the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the California Department of Motor Vehicles mailed a notice" if there is evidence that the defendant did not receive the notice or for other reasons did not know that his or her license was revoked or suspended.
Similarly, the court must not give the bracketed paragraph that begins with "If the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a court informed the defendant" if there is evidence that the defendant did not receive the notice or for other reasons did not know that his or her license was revoked or suspended. In addition, this provision regarding notice by the court only applies if the defendant is charged with a violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.2. (See Veh. Code, § 14601.2(c).) Do not give this paragraph if the defendant is charged under any other Vehicle Code section.
Give the bracketed definition of motor vehicle unless the court has already given the definition in another instruction. In such cases, the court may give the bracketed sentence stating that the term is defined elsewhere.
Give CALCRIM No. 2241, Driver and Driving Defined, on request.
If the defendant is charged with one or more prior convictions, give CALCRIM No. 3100, Prior Conviction: Nonbifurcated Trial, unless the defendant has stipulated to the conviction. If the court has granted a bifurcated trial on the prior conviction, use CALCRIM No. 3101, Prior Conviction: Bifurcated Trial.
Authority
Elements. Veh. Code, §§ 13106, 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.5.
Motor Vehicle Defined. Veh. Code, § 415.
Actual Knowledge of Suspension or Revocation Required. In re Murdock (1968) 68 Cal.2d 313, 315-316 [66 Cal.Rptr. 380, 437 P.2d 764].
Mandatory Presumption Unconstitutional Unless Instructed as Permissive Inference. People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491, 497-505 [189 Cal.Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302].
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Public Peace and Welfare, § 239.
5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 93, Disabilities Flowing From Conviction, § 93.08[6] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 145, Narcotics and Alcohol Offenses, § 145.02[1][c] (Matthew Bender).
Related Issues
Suspension or Revocation Continues Until License Restored
In People v. Gutierrez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 166], the defendant's license had been suspended for a period of one year for driving under the influence. The defendant was arrested for driving after that one-year period had expired. The court held that the defendant's license remained suspended even though the stated time period had passed because the defendant had not taken the steps necessary to restore his driving privilege. (Id. at pp. 8-9.)
Privilege to Drive May Be Suspended or Revoked Even If No License Issued
A person's privilege to drive may be suspended or revoked even though that person has never been issued a valid driver's license. (People v. Matas (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 9 [246 Cal.Rptr. 627].)
May Be Punished for This Offense and Driving Under the Influence
In In re Hayes (1969) 70 Cal.2d 604, 611 [75 Cal.Rptr. 790, 451 P.2d 430], the court held that Penal Code section 654 did not preclude punishing the defendant for both driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license.
(New January 2006)