CALCRIM No. 2600. Giving or Offering a Bribe to an Executive Officer (Pen. Code, § 67)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF
2600.Giving or Offering a Bribe to an Executive Officer (Pen.
Code, § 67)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (giving/ [or] offering) a
bribe to an executive officer [in violation of Penal Code section 67].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant (gave/ [or] offered) a bribe to an executive officer
in this state [or someone acting on the officer’s behalf];
2. The defendant acted with the corrupt intent to unlawfully
influence that officer’s official (act[,]/ decision[,]/ vote[,]/
opinion[,]/ [or] <insert description of alleged conduct
in other proceeding>).
As used here, bribe means something of present or future value or
advantage, or a promise to give such a thing, that is given or offered
with the corrupt intent to unlawfully influence the public or official
action, vote, decision, [or] opinion, [or <insert description of
alleged conduct at other proceeding>] of the person to whom the bribe is
A person acts with corrupt intent when he or she acts to wrongfully gain
a financial or other advantage for himself, herself, or someone else.
The official (act[,]/ decision[,]/ vote[,]/ opinion[,]/ [or] proceeding) the
defendant sought to influence must have related to an existing subject
that could have been brought before the public officer in his or her
official capacity. It does not have to relate to a duty specifically given by
statute to that officer.
An executive officer is a government official who may use his or her own
discretion in performing his or her job duties. [(A/An)
<insert title, e.g., police offıcer, commissioner, etc.> is an executive officer.]
[The executive officer does not need to have (accepted the bribe[,]/ [or]
performed the requested act[,]/ [or] deliberately failed to perform a
[Offering a bribe does not require specific words or behavior, as long as
the language used and the circumstances clearly show an intent to bribe.
[The thing offered does not need to actually be given, exist at the time it
is offered, or have a specific value.]]
New January 2006
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
The statute applies to giving or offering a bribe to “any executive officer . . . with
intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other
proceeding as such officer . . . .” It is unclear what “other proceeding” refers to and
there are no cases defining the phrase. If the evidence presents an issue about
attempting to influence an officer in any “other proceeding,” the court may insert a
description of the proceeding where indicated.
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The executive officer does not” if the
evidence shows that the executive officer did not accept the bribe or follow through
on the action sought.
Give the bracketed definition of “offering a bribe” if the prosecution is pursuing this
theory. Give the bracketed sentence that begins, “The thing offered does not need to
actually,” on request.
Elements. Pen. Code, § 67.
Bribe Defined. Pen. Code, § 7(6).
Corruptly Defined. Pen. Code, § 7(3).
Executive Officer Defined. People v. Strohl (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 347, 361 [129
Cal.Rptr. 224].
Corrupt Intent Is an Element of Bribery. People v. Gliksman (1978) 78
Cal.App.3d 343, 351 [144 Cal.Rptr. 451]; People v. Zerillo (1950) 36 Cal.2d
222, 232 [223 P.2d 223].
Subject Matter of Bribe. People v. Megladdery (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 748, 782
[106 P.2d 84], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Posey (2004) 32
Cal.4th 193, 214-215 [8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 82 P.3d 755] and People v. Simon
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1108 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 25 P.3d 598]; People v.
Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 276 [182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 643 P.2d 971].
Offering a Bribe. People v. Britton (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 561, 564 [22
Cal.Rptr. 921].
Bribery and Extortion Distinguished. People v. Powell (1920) 50 Cal.App. 436,
441 [195 P. 456].
No Bilateral Agreement Necessary. People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d
343, 350-351 [144 Cal.Rptr. 451].
The crime is complete once an offer is made. Accordingly, subsequent efforts to
procure corroborative evidence do not constitute entrapment. (People v. Finkelstin
(1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 545, 553 [220 P.2d 934]; People v. Bunkers (1905) 2
Cal.App. 197, 209 [84 P. 364].)
Accomplice Liability and Conspiracy
The giver and the recipient of a bribe are not accomplices of one another, nor are
they coconspirators, because they are guilty of distinct crimes that require different
mental states. (People v. Wolden (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 798, 804 [63 Cal.Rptr.
Extortion Distinguished
Extortion is bribery with the additional element of coercion. Accordingly, the
defendant cannot be guilty of receiving a bribe and extortion in the same
transaction. (People v. Powell (1920) 50 Cal.App. 436, 441 [195 P. 456].)
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, §§ 33-56.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 141,
Conspiracy, Solicitation, and Attempt, § 141.10 (Matthew Bender).

© Judicial Council of California.