California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)
2574. Sale or Transportation of Destructive DeviceDownload PDF
2574.Sale or Transportation of Destructive Device (Pen. Code,
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (selling/transporting) a
destructive device [in violation of Penal Code section 18730].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
1. The defendant (sold/transported) a destructive device;
2. The defendant knew (he/she) (sold/transported) it;
3. The defendant knew that what (he/she) (sold/transported) was a
[As used here, selling means exchanging something for money, services,
or anything of value.]
[A person transports something if he or she carries or moves it from one
location to another even if the distance is short.]
[A destructive device is <insert deﬁnition from Pen. Code,
[<insert type of destructive device from Pen. Code, § 16460>
is a destructive device.]
[The term destructive device is deﬁned in another instruction.]
[Two or more people may (sell/transport) something at the same time.]
[A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to (sell/
transport) it. It is enough if the person has (control over it/ [or] the
right to control it), either personally or through another person.]
<Defense: Statutory Exception>
[The defendant did not unlawfully (sell/transport) a destructive device if
(he/she) was legally authorized to do so. The People have the burden of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not legally
authorized to (sell/transport) a destructive device. If the People have not
met this burden, you must ﬁnd the defendant not guilty of this crime.]
New January 2006; Revised February 2012
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction deﬁning the elements of
Depending on the device used, give the bracketed deﬁnitions of “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 Penal Code section 16460, the court
may instead give the bracketed sentence stating that the listed item “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 257].)
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 (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 251, 258 [129 Cal.Rptr. 139];
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
Penal Code section 18730 allows for the sale, offer to sell, or transportation of a
destructive device “as provided by this chapter.” As with a permit for possession,
the existence of a legally valid basis for the defendant to sell or transport a
destructive device is an affirmative defense. (See People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91
Cal.App.3d 609, 627–629 [154 Cal.Rptr. 314].) If there is sufficient evidence to
raise a reasonable doubt about the existence of a legal basis for the defendant’s
actions, the court has a sua sponte duty to give the bracketed instruction on the
defense. (See People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 478–481 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d
326, 49 P.3d 1067] [discussing affirmative defenses generally and the burden of
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 18730.
•Destructive Device Deﬁned. Pen. Code, § 16460.
• Knowledge. See People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 609, 619 [154
Cal.Rptr. 314]; People v. Guy (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 593 [165 Cal.Rptr. 463].
• 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].
CALCRIM No. 2574 WEAPONS
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against Public
Peace and Welfare, §§ 168–169.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 144,
Crimes Against Order, § 144.01[c] (Matthew Bender).
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
• Possession of Destructive Device. Pen. Code, § 18710; People v. Westoby
(1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [134 Cal.Rptr. 97].
WEAPONS CALCRIM No. 2574