2430. Possession of More Than $100,000 Related to Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds
The defendant is charged [in Count ______] with the unlawful possession of more than $100,000 obtained from a transaction involving a controlled substance.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant possessed more than $100,000 in (cash/ [or] <insert type[s] of negotiable instrument[s]>);
2. The (cash/ [or] <insert type[s] of negotiable instrument[s]>) (was/were) obtained from the (sale/ possession for sale/transportation/manufacture/offer to sell/ offer to manufacture) [of] <insert name[s] of controlled substance[s]>, [a] controlled substance[s];
3. The defendant knew that the (cash/ [or] <insert type[s] of negotiable instrument[s]>) (was/were) obtained as a result of the (sale/possession for sale/transportation/ manufacture/offer to sell/offer to manufacture) [of] a controlled substance.
[In determining whether or not the defendant is guilty of this crime, you may consider, in addition to any other relevant evidence:
[Whether the defendant had paid employment(;/.)]
[The opinion of a controlled substances expert on the source of the (cash/ [or] <insert type[s] of negotiable instrument[s]>)(;/.)]
[Documents or ledgers, if any, that show sales of controlled substances.]
You must decide the significance, if any, of this evidence.]
[Two or more people may possess something at the same time.]
[A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has (control over it/ [or] the right to control it), either personally or through another person.]
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the elements of this crime.
Give the bracketed paragraphs instructing that the jury may consider the defendant's employment, expert testimony, and ledgers if such evidence has been presented. If a controlled substances expert testifies, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on evaluating the expert's testimony. (Pen. Code, § 1127b.) Give CALCRIM No. 332, Expert Witness Testimony.
Elements. Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.6.
Possession Has Same Meaning as in Drug Possession Cases. People v. Howard (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1419, fn. 6 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 766].
Constructive vs. Actual Possession. People v. Barnes (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 552, 556 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 162].
Statute Constitutional. People v. Mitchell (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 783, 793 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 150]; People v. Granados (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 517, 519 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 131].
Instruction on Factor to Consider Constitutional. People v. Mitchell (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 783, 804-811 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 150].
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Public Peace and Welfare, § 122.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 145, Narcotics and Alcohol Offenses, § 145.01 (Matthew Bender).
No Requirement Defendant Be Involved in Drug Crime
Culpability under Health and Safety Code section 11370.6 does not require that the defendant possess a controlled substance or participate in a transaction involving controlled substances in any manner. (People v. Mitchell (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 783, 797-798 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 150].) However, the defendant must have knowledge of the origin of the money. (Id. at p. 798.)
(New January 2006)