Justia Criminal Law Center California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2024) Vehicle Offenses CALCRIM No. 2101. Driving With 0.08 Percent Blood Alcohol Causing Injury (Veh. Code, § 23153(b))

CALCRIM No. 2101. Driving With 0.08 Percent Blood Alcohol Causing Injury (Veh. Code, § 23153(b))

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF

2101.Driving With 0.08 Percent Blood Alcohol Causing Injury

(Veh. Code, § 23153(b))

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with causing injury to

another person while driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent

or more [in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153(b)].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

1. The defendant drove a vehicle;

2. When (he/she) drove, the defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.08

percent or more by weight;

3. When the defendant was driving with that blood alcohol level,

(he/she) also (committed an illegal act/ [or] neglected to perform a

legal duty);

AND

4. The defendant’s (illegal act/ [or] failure to perform a legal duty)

caused bodily injury to another person.

[If the People have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a sample of

the defendant’s (blood/breath) was taken within three hours of the

defendant’s [alleged] driving and that a chemical analysis of the sample

showed a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more, you may, but are

not required to, conclude that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was

0.08 percent or more at the time of the alleged offense.]

[In evaluating any test results in this case, you may consider whether or

not the person administering the test or the agency maintaining the

testing device followed the regulations of the California Department of

Public Health.]

[The People allege that the defendant committed the following illegal

act[s]: <list name[s] of offense[s]>.

To decide whether the defendant committed <list name[s] of

offense[s]>, please refer to the separate instructions that I (will give/have

given) you on (that/those) crime[s].]

[The People [also] allege that the defendant failed to perform the

following legal (duty/duties) while driving the vehicle: (the duty to

exercise ordinary care at all times and to maintain proper control of the

vehicle/ <insert other duty or duties alleged>).]

[You may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree that the

People have proved that the defendant (committed [at least] one illegal

130

act/[or] failed to perform [at least] one duty).

[You must all agree on which (act the defendant committed/ [or] duty

the defendant failed to perform).]

[But you do not have to all agree on which (act the defendant

committed/ [or] duty the defendant failed to perform).]]

[Using ordinary care means using reasonable care to prevent reasonably

foreseeable harm to someone else. A person fails to exercise ordinary

care if he or she (does something that a reasonably careful person would

not do in the same situation/ [or] fails to do something that a reasonably

careful person would do in the same situation).]

[An act causes bodily injury to another person if the injury is the direct,

natural, and probable consequence of the act and the injury would not

have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is

one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing

unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and

probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.]

[There may be more than one cause of injury. An act causes bodily

injury to another person only if it is a substantial factor in causing the

injury. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor.

However, it need not be the only factor that causes the injury.]

New January 2006; Revised August 2006, April 2008, August 2015, March 2018,

September 2019

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the

crime.

If the prosecution alleges under element 3 that the defendant committed an act

forbidden by law, the court has a sua sponte duty to specify the predicate offense

alleged and to instruct on the elements of that offense. (People v. Minor (1994) 28

Cal.App.4th 431, 438-439 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 641]; People v. Ellis (1999) 69

Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 409].)

If the prosecution alleges under element 3 that the defendant neglected to perform a

duty imposed by law, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the duty

allegedly neglected. (See People v. Minor,supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at pp. 438-439.) If

the prosecution alleges that the defendant neglected the general duty of every driver

to exercise ordinary care (see People v. Oyass (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 663, 669 [219

VEHICLE OFFENSES CALCRIM No. 2101

131

Cal.Rptr. 243]), the court should give the bracketed definition of “ordinary care.”

If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate

cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590-591 [35 Cal.Rptr.

401].) If the evidence indicates that there was only one cause of injury, the court

should give the first bracketed paragraph on causation, which includes the “direct,

natural, and probable” language. If there is evidence of multiple causes of injury, the

court should also give the second bracketed paragraph on causation, which includes

the “substantial factor” definition. (See People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351,

363 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 135]; People v. Pike (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 732, 746-747 [243

Cal.Rptr. 54].)

There is a split in authority over whether there is a sua sponte duty to give a

unanimity instruction when multiple predicate offenses are alleged. (People v. Gary

(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1218 [235 Cal.Rptr. 30] [unanimity instruction

required], overruled on other grounds in People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481

[76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869]; People v. Durkin (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d Supp.

9, 13 [252 Cal.Rptr. 735] [unanimity instruction not required but preferable]; People

v. Mitchell (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 216, 222 [232 Cal.Rptr. 438] [unanimity

instruction not required]; People v. Leffel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 575, 586-587 [249

Cal.Rptr. 906] [unanimity instruction not required, failure to give harmless error if

was required].) If the court concludes that a unanimity instruction is appropriate,

give the unanimity alternative A. If the court concludes that unanimity is not

required, give the unanimity alternative B.

The bracketed paragraph that begins with “If the People have proved beyond a

reasonable doubt that a sample of” explains a rebuttable presumption created by

statute. (See Veh. Code, § 23152(b); 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 [189 Cal.Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302].) In

accordance with Roder, the instructions have been written as permissive inferences.

The court must not give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “If the People

have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a sample of” if there is no substantial

evidence that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was at or above 0.08 percent at the

time of the test.

If the evidence demonstrates that the person administering the test or agency

maintaining the testing device failed to follow the title 17 regulations, give the

bracketed sentence that begins with “In evaluating any test results in this case.”

(People v. Adams (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 559, 567 [131 Cal.Rptr. 190] [failure to

follow regulations in administering breath test goes to weight, not admissibility, of

the evidence]; People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal.4th 408, 417 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 854,

49 P.3d 203] [same]; People v. Esayian (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1039 [5

Cal.Rptr.3d 542] [results of blood test admissible even though phlebotomist who

drew blood not authorized under title 17].)

If the defendant is charged with one or more prior convictions for driving under the

CALCRIM No. 2101 VEHICLE OFFENSES

132

influence, the defendant may stipulate to the convictions. (People v. Weathington

(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69, 90 [282 Cal.Rptr. 170].) In addition, either the defendant

or the prosecution may move for a bifurcated trial. (People v. Calderon (1994) 9

Cal.4th 69, 77-78 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 885 P.2d 83]; People v. Cline (1998) 60

Cal.App.4th 1327, 1334-1336 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 41]; People v. Weathington,supra,

231 Cal.App.3d at p. 90.) If the defendant does not stipulate and the court does not

grant a bifurcated trial, give CALCRIM No. 2125, Driving Under the Influence or

With 0.08 or 0.04 Percent Blood Alcohol: Prior Convictions. If the court grants a

bifurcated trial, give CALCRIM No. 2126, Driving Under the Influence or With

0.08 or 0.04 Percent Blood Alcohol: Prior Convictions - Bifurcated Trial. If the

defendant stipulates to the truth of the convictions, the prior convictions should not

be disclosed to the jury unless the court admits them as otherwise relevant. (See

People v. Hall (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 128, 135 [79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690].)

On request, give CALCRIM No. 2241, Driver and Driving Defined.

Defenses - Instructional Duty

On request, if supported by the evidence, the court must instruct on the “imminent

peril/sudden emergency” doctrine. (People v. Boulware (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 268,

269-270 [106 P.2d 436].) The court may use the bracketed instruction on sudden

emergency in CALCRIM No. 590, Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated.

Related Instructions

CALCRIM No. 2100, Driving a Vehicle or Operating a Vessel Under the Influence

Causing Injury.

CALCRIM No. 2125, Driving Under the Influence or With 0.08 or 0.04 Percent

Blood Alcohol: Prior Convictions.

CALCRIM No. 2126, Driving Under the Influence or With 0.08 or 0.04 Percent

Blood Alcohol: Prior Convictions - Bifurcated Trial.

CALCRIM No. 595, Vehicular Manslaughter: Speeding Laws Defined.

AUTHORITY

• Elements. Veh. Code, § 23153(b); Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal. 3d

257, 265-266 [198 Cal. Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732].

• Partition Ratio. Veh. Code, § 23152(b); People v. Bransford (1994) 8 Cal.4th

885, 890 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 613, 884 P.2d 70].

• Presumptions. Veh. Code, § 23153(b); Evid. Code, § 607; People v. Milham

(1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 487, 503-505 [205 Cal.Rptr. 688].

• Must Instruct on Elements of Predicate Offense. People v. Minor (1994) 28

Cal.App.4th 431, 438-439 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 641]; People v. Ellis (1999) 69

Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 409].

• Negligence - Ordinary Care. Pen. Code, § 7(2); Restatement Second of Torts,

§ 282.

• Causation. People v. Rodriguez (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 433, 440 [8 Cal.Rptr.

863].

VEHICLE OFFENSES CALCRIM No. 2101

133

• Unanimity Instruction. People v. Gary (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1218 [235

Cal.Rptr. 30], overruled on other grounds in People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th

470, 481 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869]; People v. Durkin (1988) 205

Cal.App.3d Supp. 9, 13 [252 Cal.Rptr. 735]; People v. Mitchell (1986) 188

Cal.App.3d 216, 222 [232 Cal.Rptr. 438]; People v. Leffel (1988) 203

Cal.App.3d 575, 586-587 [249 Cal.Rptr. 906].

• Statute Constitutional. Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257, 273 [198

Cal.Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732].

• Prior Convictions. People v. Weathington (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69, 90 [282

Cal.Rptr. 170].

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES

• Misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence or With 0.08 Percent. Veh. Code,

§ 23152(a) & (b); People v. Capetillo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 211, 220 [269

Cal.Rptr. 250].

RELATED ISSUES

See the Related Issues section in CALCRIM No. 2111, Driving With 0.08 Percent

Blood Alcohol and CALCRIM No. 2100, Driving a Vehicle or Operating a Vessel

Under the Influence Causing Injury.

SECONDARY SOURCES

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public

Peace and Welfare, §§ 272-277.

5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,

Sentencing, § 91.36 (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 145,

Narcotics and Alcohol Offenses, § 145.02[1] (Matthew Bender).

CALCRIM No. 2101 VEHICLE OFFENSES

134

Page last reviewed May 2024