the ﬁrearm “in the commission of” the offense, see Bench Notes.>
The People have the burden of proving each allegation beyond a
reasonable doubt. If the People have not met this burden, you must ﬁnd
that the allegation has not been proved.
New January 2006; Revised August 2006, February 2012
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction deﬁning the elements of
the enhancement. (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [120 S.Ct.
2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435].)
The court should give the bracketed deﬁnition of “ﬁrearm” 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.
When two or more defendants are charged with an arming enhancement for the
same offense, the preferred approach is for the court to provide the jury with a
separate verdict form for the enhancement for each defendant. (People v. Paul
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 698, 708 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 660, 958 P.2d 412].) However, this
procedure is not required. (Id. at p. 705.)
In the deﬁnition of “armed,” the court may give the bracketed phrase “or has a
ﬁrearm available” on request if the evidence shows that the ﬁrearm was at the
scene of the alleged crime and “available to the defendant to use in furtherance of
the underlying felony.” (People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal.4th 991, 997–998 [43
Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 898 P.2d 391]; see also People v. Wandick (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d
918, 927–928 [278 Cal.Rptr. 274] [language of instruction approved; sufficient
evidence defendant had ﬁrearm available for use]; People v. Jackson (1995) 32
Cal.App.4th 411, 419–422 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 214] [evidence that ﬁrearm was two
blocks away from scene of rape insufficient to show available to defendant].)
If the case involves an issue of whether the principal was armed “during the
commission” of the offense, the court may give CALCRIM No. 3261, In
Commission of Felony: Deﬁned—Escape Rule. (See People v. Jones (2001) 25
Cal.4th 98, 109 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 753, 18 P.3d 674]; People v. Masbruch (1996) 13
Cal.4th 1001, 1014 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 760, 920 P.2d 705]; People v. Taylor (1995) 32
Cal.App.4th 578, 582 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 127].)
If there is evidence that the defendant was an aider and abettor, give the
appropriate instructions on aider and abettor liability, CALCRIM Nos. 400–410.
• Enhancement. Pen. Code, § 12022(d).
•Principal Deﬁned. Pen. Code, § 31.
ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS CALCRIM No. 3117