CALCRIM No. 3002. Failure to Appear While on Own Recognizance Release (Pen. Code, § 1320)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2020 edition)

Download PDF
3002.Failure to Appear While on Own Recognizance Release
(Pen. Code, § 1320)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with failing to appear while
released from custody on (his/her) own recognizance [in violation of
Penal Code section 1320((a)/(b))].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant was (charged with/convicted of) the commission of
a (felony/misdemeanor) in (this case/case number );
2. The defendant was released from custody on (his/her) own
recognizance pursuant to a signed written release;
3. The defendant willfully failed to appear in court as required;
AND
4. When the defendant willfully failed to appear in court as
required, (he/she) did so in order to evade the process of the
court.
Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on
purpose.
Asigned written release must contain the following:
1. Defendant’s promise to appear as ordered by a judge or
magistrate;
2. Defendant’s promise to obey all reasonable conditions imposed by
a judge or magistrate;
3. Defendant’s promise not to leave the state without permission
from the court;
4. Defendant’s agreement to waive extradition if he or she fails to
appear as required and is arrested outside the State of California;
AND
5. Defendant’s acknowledgement that he or she has been informed
of the consequences and penalties for violations of the conditions
of release.
[If you find the defendant willfully failed to appear within 14 days of the
date assigned for appearance, you may, but are not required to, infer
that the failure to appear was for the purpose of evading the process of
the court.]
797
New March 2018
BENCH NOTES
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 1320.
• Requirement of written agreement conforming to Pen. Code, § 1318. People v.
Hernandez (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1182 [99 Cal.Rptr.3d 548]; People v. Jenkins
(1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 22 [193 Cal.Rptr. 854].
• Split of authority over whether substantial compliance with Penal Code section
1318 is sufficient. People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1406 [167
Cal.Rptr.3d 60] (Yes); People v. Mohammed (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 920 [76
Cal.Rptr.3d 372] (No).
• Willfully defined. Pen. Code, § 7(1); People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th
102, 107 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402].
• Specific intent. People v. Sutton (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 795, 799-800 [23
Cal.Rptr.2d 632]; People v. Wesley (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 519 [243 Cal.Rptr.
785].
• Mandatory presumption unconstitutional unless instructed as permissive
inference. People v. Forrester (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1703 [37
Cal.Rptr.2d 19].
SECONDARY SOURCES
4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th Ed. 2012) Pretrial Proceedings,
§§ 135-139.
3003-3099. Reserved for Future Use
CALCRIM No. 3002 VANDALISM, LOITERING, AND TRESPASS
798

© Judicial Council of California.