California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

2601. Giving or Offering a Bribe to a Ministerial Officer

Download PDF
2601.Giving or Offering a Bribe to a Ministerial Officer (Pen.
Code, § 67.5)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (giving/ [or] offering)
a bribe to a (ministerial officer/government employee/government
appointee) [in violation of Penal Code section 67.5].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant (gave/ [or] offered) a bribe to (a/an) (ministerial
officer/employee/appointee) of the (State of California/City of
<insert name of city>/County of <insert
name of county>/<insert name of political subdivision
from Pen. Code, § 67.5>) [or to someone acting on the (officer’s/
employee’s/appointee’s) behalf];
AND
2. The defendant acted with the corrupt intent to unlawfully
influence that (officer’s/employee’s/appointee’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 of the person to whom the bribe is
given.
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 (officer/employee/appointee) in
his or her official capacity. It does not have to relate to a duty
specifically given by statute to that (officer/employee/appointee).
[A ministerial officer is an officer who has a clear and mandatory duty
involving the performance of specific tasks without the exercise of
discretion.]
[The (officer/employee/appointee) does not need to have (accepted the
bribe[,]/ [or] performed the requested act[,]/ [or] deliberately failed to
perform a duty).]
[Offering a bribe does not require specific words or behavior, as long as
the language used and the circumstances clearly show an intent to
478
0008
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; Revised February 2012
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of
the crime.
If the defendant is charged with a felony based on the value of the item offered or
given (Pen. Code, § 67.5(b)), give CALCRIM No. 2602, Giving or Offering a
Bribe to a Ministerial Offıcer: Value of Thing Offered.
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The (officer/employee/appointee)
does not” if the evidence shows that the 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.
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 67.5.
Bribe Defined. Pen. Code, § 7, subd. 6.
• Corruptly Defined. Pen. Code, § 7, subd. 3.
• Grand Theft Defined. Pen. Code, § 487.
• Ministerial Officer Defined. Gov. Code, § 820.25(b); 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].
CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT CALCRIM No. 2601
479
0009
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Governmental Authority, §§ 32–55.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 141,
Conspiracy, Solicitation, and Attempt, § 141.10 (Matthew Bender).
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
If the defendant is charged with a felony based on the value of the item offered or
given (Pen. Code, § 67.5(b)), then the misdemeanor is a lesser included offense
(Pen. Code, § 67.5(a)). The court must provide the jury with a verdict form on
which the jury will indicate if the prosecution has proved that the thing offered was
worth more than $950 or was something that if stolen would qualify as grand theft.
If the jury finds that this allegation has not been proved, then the offense should be
set at a misdemeanor.
RELATED ISSUES
See the Related Issues section of CALCRIM No. 2600, Giving or Offering a Bribe
to an Executive Offıcer.
CALCRIM No. 2601 CRIMES AGAINST GOVERNMENT
480
0010