California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

2182. Evading Peace Officer: Misdemeanor

Download PDF
2182.Evading Peace Officer: Misdemeanor (Veh. Code,
§ 2800.1(a))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with evading a peace
officer [in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.1(a)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. A peace officer driving a motor vehicle was pursuing the
2. The defendant, who was also driving a motor vehicle, willfully
fled from, or tried to elude, the officer, intending to evade the
3. All of the following were true:
(a) There was at least one lighted red lamp visible from the front
of the peace officer’s vehicle;
(b) The defendant either saw or reasonably should have seen the
(c) The peace officer’s vehicle was sounding a siren as reasonably
(d) The peace officer’s vehicle was distinctively marked;
(d) AND
(e) The peace officer was wearing a distinctive uniform.
[A person employed as a police officer by <insert name of
agency that employs police offıcer> is a peace officer.]
[A person employed by <insert name of agency that employs
peace offıcer, e.g., “the Department of Fish and Wildlife”> is a peace
officer if <insert description of facts necessary to make
employee a peace offıcer, e.g., “designated by the director of the agency as
a peace offıcer”>.]
Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on
purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt
someone else, or gain any advantage.
A vehicle is distinctively marked if it has features that are reasonably
noticeable to other drivers, including a red lamp, siren, and at least one
other feature that makes it look different from vehicles that are not
used for law enforcement purposes.
Adistinctive uniform means clothing adopted by a law enforcement
agency to identify or distinguish members of its force. The uniform does
not have to be complete or of any particular level of formality. However,
a badge, without more, is not enough.
New January 2006; Revised August 2006
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of
the crime.
The jury must determine whether a peace officer was pursuing the defendant.
(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 482 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869].)
The court must instruct the jury in the appropriate definition of “peace officer”
from the statute. (Ibid.) It is an error for the court to instruct that the witness is a
peace officer as a matter of law. (Ibid. [instruction that “Officer Bridgeman and
Officer Gurney are peace officers” was error].) If the witness is a police officer,
give the bracketed sentence that begins with “A person employed as a police
officer.” If the witness is another type of peace officer, give the bracketed sentence
that begins with “A person employed by.”
On request, the court must give CALCRIM No. 3426, Voluntary Intoxication, if
there is sufficient evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate the intent to evade.
(People v. Finney (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 705, 712 [168 Cal.Rptr. 80].)
On request, give CALCRIM No. 2241, Driver and Driving Defined.
• Elements. Veh. Code, § 2800.1(a).
Distinctively Marked Vehicle. People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002,
1010–1011 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632, 136 P.3d 168].
• Distinctive Uniform. People v. Estrella (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 716, 724 [37
Cal.Rptr.2d 383]; People v. Mathews (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 485, 491 [75
Cal.Rptr.2d 289].
• Jury Must Determine If Peace Officers. People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th
470, 482 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869].
• Red Lamp, Siren, Additional Distinctive Feature of Car, and Distinctive
Uniform Must Be Proved. People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 [44
Cal.Rptr.3d 632, 136 P.3d 168]; People v. Acevedo (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 195,
199 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 270]; People v. Brown (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 596,
599–600 [264 Cal.Rptr. 908].
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Public
Peace and Welfare, § 260.
3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 63, Double
Jeopardy, § 63.21[2][a] (Matthew Bender).
5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,
Sentencing, § 91.22[1][a][iv] (Matthew Bender).
Multiple Pursuing Officers Constitutes Only One Offense
Adefendant “may only be convicted of one count of section 2800.2 even though
the pursuit involved multiple police officers in multiple police vehicles.” (People v.
Garcia (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1163 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 694].)
2183–2199. Reserved for Future Use