California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)
2431. Possession of More Than $100,000 Related to Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Money to PurchaseDownload PDF
2431.Possession of More Than $100,000 Related to Transaction
Involving Controlled Substance: Money to Purchase (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11370.6)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with the unlawful
possession of more than $100,000 intended for purchasing a controlled
substance [in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.6].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
1. The defendant possessed more than $100,000 in (cash/ [or]
<insert type[s] of negotiable instrument[s]>);
2. The defendant intended to use the (cash/ [or]
<insert type[s] of negotiable instrument[s]>) to unlawfully
purchase <insert name[s] of controlled
substance[s]>, [a] controlled substance[s];
3. The defendant committed an act in substantial furtherance of the
[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.]
New January 2006
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
• 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).
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 2430, Possession of More Than
$100,000 Related to Transaction Involving Controlled Substance: Proceeds.
CALCRIM No. 2431 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES