2126.Driving Under the Inﬂuence or With 0.08 Percent Blood
Alcohol: Prior Convictions—Bifurcated Trial (Veh. Code,
§§ 23550, 23550.5 & 23566)
The People have alleged that the defendant was previously convicted of
(another/other) driving under the inﬂuence offense[s]. It has already
been determined that the defendant is the person named in exhibits
<insert numbers or descriptions of exhibits>. You must decide
whether the evidence proves that the defendant was convicted of the
The People allege that the defendant has been convicted of:
[1.] A violation of <insert Veh. Code section violated>, on
<insert date of conviction>, in the
<insert name of court>, in Case Number ______ <insert docket or
[AND <Repeat for each prior conviction alleged>.]
[In deciding whether the People have proved the allegation[s], consider
only the evidence presented in this proceeding. Do not consider your
verdict or any evidence from the earlier part of the trial.]
You may not return a ﬁnding that (the/any) alleged conviction has or
has not been proved unless all 12 of you agree on that ﬁnding.
New January 2006
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proof of the alleged prior
convictions. Give this instruction if the court has granted a bifurcated trial. The
court must also give CALCRIM No. 221, Reasonable Doubt: Bifurcated Trial.
Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “In deciding whether the People
have proved” on request.
The court must provide the jury with a verdict form on which the jury will indicate
if the prior conviction has been proved. (Pen. Code, § 1158.)
• Enhancements. Veh. Code, §§ 23550, 23550.5 & 23566.
• Prior Convictions. People v. Weathington (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69, 90 [282
• Bifurcation. People v. Calderon (1994) 9 Cal.4th 69, 77–79 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d