CALCRIM No. 2963. Permitting Person Under 21 to Consume Alcoholic Beverage (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25658(d))

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2022 edition)

Download PDF
Bg823
2963.Permitting Person Under 21 to Consume Alcoholic
Beverage (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25658(d))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with [unlawfully] permitting
a person under 21 years old to consume an alcoholic beverage [in
violation of Business and Professions Code section 25658(d)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant was licensed to sell alcoholic beverages on the
premises of a business;
2. The defendant [unlawfully] permitted <insert name
of person under 21> to consume an alcoholic beverage on the
premises of that business;
AND
3. The defendant knew that <insert name of person
under 21> was consuming an alcoholic beverage.
An alcoholic beverage is a liquid or solid material intended to be
consumed that contains one-half of 1 percent or more of alcohol by
volume. [An alcoholic beverage includes <insert type[s] of
beverage[s] from Bus. & Prof. Code, § 23004, e.g., wine, beer>.]
[Under the law, a person becomes one year older as soon as the first
minute of his or her birthday has begun.]
The People are not required to prove that the defendant knew that
<insert name of person under 21> was under 21.
<Defense: Good Faith Belief at Least 21>
[The defendant is not guilty of this crime if (he/she) reasonably and
actually believed that <insert name of person under 21> was
at least 21 years old. The People have the burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably and actually
believe that <insert name of person under 21> was at least
21 years old. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the
defendant not guilty of this crime.]
<Defense: Actual Reliance on Identification>
[The defendant did not unlawfully permit a person under 21 years old to
consume an alcoholic beverage if:
1. The defendant [or (his/her) (employee/ [or] agent)] demanded to
see a government-issued document as evidence of ’s
<insert name of person under 21> age and identity;
761
Copyright Judicial Council of California
Bg824
2. <insert name of person under 21> showed the
defendant [or (his/her) employee/ [or] agent)] a government-
issued document, or what appeared to be a government-issued
document, as evidence of (his/her) age and identity;
AND
3. The defendant [or (his/her) employee/ [or] agent)] actually relied
on the document as evidence of ’s <insert name of
person under 21> age and identity.
As used here, a government-issued document is a document [including a
driver’s license or an identification card issued to a person in the armed
forces] that has been, or appears to have been, issued by a government
agency and contains the person’s name, date of birth, description, and
picture. The government-issued document does not have to be genuine.
[An agent is a person who is authorized to act for the defendant in
dealings with other people.]
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did not actually rely on a government-issued document, or
what appeared to be a government issued document, as evidence of
s <insert name of person under 21> age and identity. If the
People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty
of this crime.]
New January 2006; Revised August 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
Give the bracketed sentence about calculating age if requested. (Fam. Code, § 6500;
In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 849-850 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d 391].)
Defenses - Instructional Duty
Business and Professions Code section 25660(c) provides a defense for those who
rely in good faith on bona fide evidence of age and identity. If there is sufficient
evidence, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct 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 proof].) Give the
bracketed word “unlawfully” in the first sentence and element 1, and the bracketed
paragraph on the defense.
In In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254, 280 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 95 P.3d 906], the
Supreme Court held that, for a prosecution under Business and Professions Code
section 25658(a), the defendant may assert as a defense a good faith belief that the
CALCRIM No. 2963 VANDALISM, LOITERING, AND TRESPASS
762
Copyright Judicial Council of California
Bg825
person was at least 21. If the trial court concludes that this defense also applies to a
prosecution under Business and Professions Code section 25658(d) and there is
sufficient evidence, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense. The
court may use the bracketed language to instruct on this defense if appropriate.
AUTHORITY
Elements. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25658(d).
Alcoholic Beverage Defined. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 23004.
Bona Fide Evidence of Age Defense. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25660(c); Kirby v.
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 895, 897,
898-899 [73 Cal.Rptr. 352].
Affirmative Defenses. See People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 478-481
[122 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 49 P.3d 1067].
RELATED ISSUES
See the Related Issues section of CALCRIM No. 2962, Selling or Furnishing
Alcoholic Beverage to Person Under 21.
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public
Peace and Welfare, § 364-369.
VANDALISM, LOITERING, AND TRESPASS CALCRIM No. 2963
763
Copyright Judicial Council of California

© Judicial Council of California.