CALCRIM No. 2572. Possession of Explosive or Destructive Device in Specified Place (Pen. Code, § 18715)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF
2572.Possession of Explosive or Destructive Device in Specified
Place (Pen. Code, § 18715)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with recklessly or
maliciously possessing (an explosive/ [or] a destructive device) (in[,]/
on[,]/ [or] near) <insert type of place alleged from Pen. Code,
§ 18715> [in violation of Penal Code section 18715].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant recklessly or maliciously possessed (an explosive/
[or] a destructive device);
2. At the time the defendant possessed the (substance/ [or] device),
(he/she) was
[on a public street or highway](;[ or]/.)
[in or near a (theater[,]/ hall[,]/ school[,]/ college[,]/ church[,]/ hotel[,]/
[or] other public building/ [or] private habitation](;[ or]/.)
[in, on, or near a (plane[,]/ passenger train[,]/ car[,]/ cable road or
cable car[,]/ boat carrying paying passengers)](; or/.)
[in, on, or near another public place ordinarily passed by human
A person acts recklessly when (1) he or she is aware that his or her
actions present a substantial and unjustifiable risk, (2) he or she ignores
that risk, and (3) the person’s behavior is grossly different from what a
reasonable person would have done in the same situation.
Someone acts maliciously when he or she intentionally does a wrongful
act or when he or she acts with the unlawful intent to annoy or injure
someone else.
[An explosive is any substance, or combination of substances, (1) whose
main or common purpose is to detonate or rapidly combust and (2)
which is capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and
[An explosive is also any substance whose main purpose is to be
combined with other substances to create a new substance that can
release gas and heat rapidly or relatively instantaneously.]
[<insert type of explosive from Health & Saf. Code, § 12000>
is an explosive.]
[A destructive device is <insert definition from Pen. Code,
§ 16460>.]
[<insert type of destructive device from Pen. Code, § 16460>
is a destructive device.]
[The term[s] (explosive/ [and] destructive device) (is/are) defined in
another instruction.]
[The People do not need to prove that the (explosive/ [or] destructive
device) was set to explode.]
[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 People allege that the defendant possessed the following
(explosive[s]/ [or] destructive device[s]): <insert description
of each explosive or destructive device when multiple items alleged>. You
may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree that the People
have proved that the defendant possessed at least one of the alleged
items and you all agree on which alleged item (he/she) possessed.]
New January 2006; Revised February 2012, September 2019
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
If the prosecution alleges under a single count that the defendant possessed multiple
items, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on unanimity. (People v.
Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 321, 333 [130 Cal.Rptr. 349].) Give the bracketed
paragraph that begins, “The People allege that the defendant possessed the
following,” inserting the items alleged. The jury does not have to be unanimous
about whether the defendant acted recklessly or maliciously. (Ibid.) The jury also
does not have to agree on whether the item was an explosive or a destructive
device. (People v. Westoby (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 790, 797 [134 Cal.Rptr. 97]; see
also People v. Quinn, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 251, 257 [129 Cal.Rptr. 139] [a bomb
may be an explosive and may be a destructive device].)
Depending on the device or substance used, give the bracketed definitions of
“explosive” or “destructive device,” inserting the appropriate definition from Penal
Code section 16460, unless the court has already given the definition in other
instructions. In such cases, the court may give the bracketed sentence stating that
the term is defined elsewhere. If the case involves a specific device listed in Health
and Safety Code section 12000 or Penal Code section 16460, the court may instead
give the bracketed sentence stating that the listed item “is an explosive” or “is a
destructive device.” For example, “A grenade is a destructive device.” However, the
court may not instruct the jury that the defendant used a destructive device. For
example, the court may not state that “the defendant used a destructive device, a
grenade,” or “the device used by the defendant, a grenade, was a destructive
device.” (People v. Dimitrov (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 18, 25-26 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d
If the device used is a bomb, the court may insert the word “bomb” in the bracketed
definition of destructive device without further definition. (People v. Dimitrov, supra,
33 Cal.App.4th at p. 25.) Appellate courts have held that the term “bomb” is not
vague and is understood in its “common, accepted, and popular sense.” (People v.
Quinn, supra, 57 Cal.App.3d at p. 258; People v. Dimitrov, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at
p. 25.) If the court wishes to define the term “bomb,” the court may use the
following definition: “A bomb is a device carrying an explosive charge fused to
blow up or detonate under certain conditions.” (See People v. Morse (1992) 2
Cal.App.4th 620, 647, fn. 8 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 343].)
Elements. Pen. Code, § 18715.
Explosive Defined. Health & Saf. Code, § 12000.
Destructive Device Defined. Pen. Code, § 16460.
Recklessly Defined. People v. Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 321, 334 [130
Cal.Rptr. 349]; In re Steven S. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 598, 614-615 [31
Cal.Rptr.2d 644]; Model Pen. Code, § 2.02(2)(c).
Maliciously Defined. Pen. Code, § 7(4); People v. Lopez (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d
545, 550 [222 Cal.Rptr. 101]; see also People v. Heideman (1976) 58
Cal.App.3d 321, 335 [130 Cal.Rptr. 349].
Constructive vs. Actual Possession. See People v. Azevedo (1984) 161
Cal.App.3d 235, 242-243 [207 Cal.Rptr. 270], questioned on other grounds in In
re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866, 876, fn. 6 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 4 P.3d 297];
People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 609, 619 [154 Cal.Rptr. 314].
Unanimity. People v. Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 321, 333 [130 Cal.Rptr.
Possession of Destructive Device. Pen. Code, § 18710; People v. Westoby (1976)
63 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [134 Cal.Rptr. 97].
Possession of Explosive. Health & Saf. Code, § 12305; People v. Westoby (1976)
63 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [134 Cal.Rptr. 97].
Need Not Be Set to Explode
“One need not possess a destructive device already set to explode in order to violate
[now-repealed] Penal Code section 12303.2.” (People v. Westoby (1976) 63
Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [134 Cal.Rptr. 97].) Thus, the defendant in Westoby was guilty
of possessing a destructive device even though the battery wires were not connected
on the pipe bomb. (Ibid.) Similarly, in People v. Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d
321, 335-336 [130 Cal.Rptr. 349], the defendant was guilty of illegally possessing
dynamite even though he did not have the blasting caps necessary to ignite the
dynamite. (See also People v. Morse (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 620, 646-647 [3
Cal.Rptr.2d 343] [instruction on this point proper].)
Multiple Charges Based on Multiple Explosives or Destructive Devices
The defendant may be charged with multiple counts of violating Penal Code section
18715 based on possession of multiple explosives or destructive devices. (People v.
DeGuzman (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 538, 548 [6 Cal.Rptr.3d 739].)
Maliciously - People v. Heideman
In People v. Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 321 [130 Cal.Rptr. 349], the defendant
offered to commit murder for hire using explosives and possessed the explosives.
(Id. at pp. 327-329.) The defendant asserted that he did not actually intend to
physically injure anyone but simply to defraud the individuals offering to pay for
the murders. (Id. at pp. 330-331.) On appeal, the defendant contended that the court
had improperly instructed on the meaning of “recklessness,” which the prosecution
conceded. (Id. at p. 334.) Noting that the “[d]efendant admitted that his purpose in
storing the dynamite in his room was to carry out a nefarious scheme to defraud his
victims,” the court found sufficient evidence to establish malice. (Id. at p. 335.) The
court stated that under the facts of the case before it, the term “maliciously” did not
“require an actual intent to physically injure, intimidate or terrify others.” (Ibid.)
Accordingly, the court found that the error in the instruction on “recklessness” was
harmless given that there was sufficient evidence to support the higher culpability
standard of malice. (Ibid.) The committee did not incorporated the language from
Heideman in the definition of “maliciously” in this instruction because the
committee concluded that this case reflects unique facts and that the language
quoted is dicta, not essential to the ruling of the case.
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 2571, Carrying or Placing
Explosive or Destructive Device on Common Carrier.
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public
Peace and Welfare, §§ 225-227.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][a][i] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 144, Crimes
Against Order, § 144.01[1][c] (Matthew Bender).

© Judicial Council of California.