254. Union of Act and Intent: Strict-Liability Crime
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 only needs to do the prohibited act [or to fail to do the required act]. The People do not need to prove any intent or other mental state.
This instruction is provided for the court to use when instructing on a strict-liability offense. The committee does not believe that the instruction is required. However, the instruction may be useful when the case also involves general-intent, specific-intent, or criminal negligence offenses. Do not give this instruction unless the court is completely certain that the offense is a strict-liability offense. For a discussion of the rarity of strict-liability offenses in modern criminal law, see People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 754 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590], and People v. Simon (1995) 9 Cal.4th 493, 519-522 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 886 P.2d 1271].
The court must specify for the jury which offenses are strict-liability offenses by inserting the names of the offenses where indicated in the instruction. (See People v. Hill (1967) 67 Cal.2d 105, 118 [60 Cal.Rptr. 234, 429 P.2d 586].)
Strict-Liability Offenses Discussed. People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 754 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 23 P.3d 590]; People v. Simon (1995) 9 Cal.4th 493, 519-522 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 886 P.2d 1271].
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Elements, §§ 17-19.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140, Challenges to Crimes, § 140.02 (Matthew Bender).
(New January 2006)