CALCRIM No. 2574. Sale or Transportation of Destructive Device (Pen. Code, § 18730)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF
2574.Sale or Transportation of Destructive Device (Pen. Code,
§ 18730)
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
prove that:
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
destructive device.
[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,
§ 16460>.]
[<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
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
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 Cal.Rptr.2d 343].)
Defenses - Instructional Duty
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].
Possession of Destructive Device. Pen. Code, § 18710; People v. Westoby (1976)
63 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 [134 Cal.Rptr. 97].
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public
Peace and Welfare, §§ 225-226, 227.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 144, Crimes
Against Order, § 144.01[1][c] (Matthew Bender).

© Judicial Council of California.