CALCRIM No. 3149. Personally Used Firearm: Intentional Discharge Causing Injury or Death (Pen. Code, §§ 667.61(e)(3), 12022.53(d))
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)
Download PDF
3149.Personally Used Firearm: Intentional Discharge Causing
Injury or Death (Pen. Code, §§ 667.61(e)(3), 12022.53(d))
If you find the defendant guilty of the crime[s] charged in Count[s]
[,] [or of attempting to commit (that/those) crime[s]] [or the
lesser crime[s] of <insert name[s] of alleged lesser
offense[s]>], you must then decide whether[, for each crime,] the People
have proved the additional allegation that the defendant personally and
intentionally discharged a firearm during that crime causing (great
bodily injury/ [or] death). [You must decide whether the People have
proved this allegation for each crime and return a separate finding for
each crime.]
To prove this allegation, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant personally discharged a firearm during the
commission [or attempted commission] of that crime;
2. The defendant intended to discharge the firearm;
AND
3. The defendant’s act caused (great bodily injury to/ [or] the death
of) a person [who was not an accomplice to the crime].
[A firearm is any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which a
projectile is discharged or expelled through a barrel by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion.]
[The term firearm is defined in another instruction.]
[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is
an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]
[An act causes (great bodily injury/ [or] death) if the (injury/ [or] death)
is the direct, natural and probable consequence of the act and the (injury/
[or] death) would not have happened without the act. A natural and
probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is
likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a
consequence is natural and probable, consider all the circumstances
established by the evidence.]
[There may be more than one cause of (great bodily injury/ [or] death).
An act causes (injury/ [or] death) only if it is a substantial factor in
causing the (injury/ [or] death). A substantial factor is more than a trivial
or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that
causes the (injury/ [or] death).]
[A person is an accomplice if he or she is subject to prosecution for the
identical crime (charged against/intended by) the defendant [of which the
863
intentional discharge of a firearm was a natural and probable
consequence]. A person is subject to prosecution if he or she committed
the crime or if:
1. He or she knew of the criminal purpose of the person who
committed the crime;
AND
2. He or she intended to, and did in fact, (aid, facilitate, promote,
encourage, or instigate the commission of the crime/ [or]
participate in a criminal conspiracy to commit the crime).]
<If there is an issue in the case over whether the defendant used the firearm
“during 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 February 2012, September 2020, September 2022
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
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].) If the defendant is charged with an enhancement for both
intentional discharge and intentional discharge causing great bodily injury or death,
the court may give CALCRIM No. 3150, Personally Used Firearm: Intentional
Discharge and Discharge Causing Injury or Death Both Charged, instead of this
instruction.
If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate
cause (People v. Jomo K. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 335 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546,
48 P.3d 1107]); give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “An act causes . . . .”
If there is evidence of multiple potential causes, the court should also give the
bracketed paragraph that begins with “There may be more than one cause . . . .”
(Id. at pp. 335-338.)
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.
If the case involves an issue of whether the defendant used the firearm “during the
commission of” the offense, the court may give CALCRIM No. 3261, While
Committing a 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].)
CALCRIM No. 3149 ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS
864
In element 3, give the bracketed phrase “who was not an accomplice to the crime”
if there is evidence that the victim was an accomplice to the intended crime of
which the intentional discharge of a firearm was a natural and probable
consequence. (See People v. Flores (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 174, 182 [28
Cal.Rptr.3d 232]; People v. Morales (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 326, 340-341 [282
Cal.Rptr.3d 151].)
If the court gives the bracketed phrase “who was not an accomplice to the crime,”
the court should also give the bracketed definition of “accomplice.” (People v.
Verlinde (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1167-1168 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 322].)
Additional paragraphs providing further explanation of the definition of
“accomplice” are contained in CALCRIM No. 334, Accomplice Testimony Must Be
Corroborated: Dispute Whether Witness Is Accomplice. The court should review that
instruction and determine whether any of these additional paragraphs should be
given.
The second sentence of the great bodily injury definition could result in error if the
prosecution improperly argues great bodily injury may be shown by greater than
minor injury alone. (Compare People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519,
533-535 [258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867] [the definition was reasonably susceptible to
prosecutor’s erroneous argument that the injury need only be greater than minor]
with People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 466 [260 Cal.Rptr.3d 86]
[upholding instructions containing great bodily injury definition as written].)
AUTHORITY
• Enhancement. Pen. Code, §§ 667.61(e)(3), 12022.53(d).
• Firearm Defined. Pen. Code, § 16520.
• “During Commission of” Felony. People v. Jones, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp.
109-110; People v. Masbruch, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1014; People v. Taylor,
supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 582.
• Proximate Cause. People v. Jomo K. Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 335-338.
• Accomplice Defined. See Pen. Code, § 1111; People v. Verlinde, supra, 100
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1167-1168; People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 90-91
[270 Cal.Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23].
• Accomplice Exception Attaches to Intended Crime. People v. Flores, supra, 129
Cal.App.4th at p. 182; People v. Morales, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 340-341.
RELATED ISSUES
Need Not Personally Cause Injury or Death
“[Penal Code] Section 12022.53(d) requires that the defendant ‘intentionally and
personally discharged a firearm’ (italics added), but only that he ‘proximately
caused’ the great bodily injury or death . . . . The statute states nothing else that
defendant must personally do. Proximately causing and personally inflicting harm
ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS CALCRIM No. 3149
865
are two different things.” (People v. Jomo K. Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 336
[italics in original].)
Person Injured or Killed Need Not Be Victim of Crime
In People v. Oates (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1048, 1052 [12 Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 88 P.3d 56],
the defendant fired two shots into a group of people, hitting and injuring one. He
was convicted of five counts of premeditated attempted murder. The court held that
the subdivision (d) enhancement for causing great bodily injury applied to each of
the five counts even though the defendant only injured one person. (Id. at p. 1056.)
The court observed that “the phrase, ‘any person other than an accomplice,’ does not
mean ‘the victim’ of the underlying crime.” (Id. at p. 1055.)
Multiple Enhancements for Single Injury
The court in Oates (supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1056) also held that the trial court was
required to impose all five subdivision (d) enhancements because Penal Code
section 12022.53(f) requires a court to impose the longest enhancement available.
The court further found that Penal Code section 654 did not preclude imposition of
multiple subdivision (d) enhancements due to “the long-recognized, judicially-
created exception for cases involving multiple victims of violent crime.” (Id. at p.
1062.)
Multiple Enhancements May Not Be Imposed Based on Multiple Participants
In People v. Cobb (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1054, fn. 3 [21 Cal.Rptr.3d 869],
the defendant and two others simultaneously shot at the decedent. The defendant
was convicted of personally inflicting death by use of a firearm. (Id. at p. 1053; Pen.
Code, § 12022.53(d).) In addition to the sentence for personally using a firearm, the
trial court also imposed two sentences under Penal Code section 12022.53(e)(1)
based on the other two participants having also fired at the decedent (Ibid.) The
Court of Appeal reversed the latter two enhancements, holding that Penal Code
section 12022.53(f) did not permit multiple sentence enhancements based on
multiple participants in one crime. (Id. at p. 1058.)
Self-Defense and Imperfect Self-Defense
Penal Code section 12022.53(l) provides that “[t]he enhancements specified in this
section shall not apply to the lawful use or discharge of a firearm by a public
officer, as provided in Section 196, or by any person in lawful self-defense, lawful
defense of another, or lawful defense of property, as provided in Sections 197, 198,
and 198.5.” In People v. Watie (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 866, 884 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d
258], the court held, “[t]his subdivision, on its face, exempts lawful (perfect) self-
defense from the section’s application. It does not exempt imperfect self-defense.”
Further, an instruction informing the jury that the defense of self-defense applies to
the enhancement is not necessary. (Id. at p. 886.)
SECONDARY SOURCES
3 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment,
§§ 359-360.
5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Trial, § 727.
CALCRIM No. 3149 ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS
866
5 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 91,
Sentencing, § 91.30[5] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,
Challenges to Crimes, § 140.04 (Matthew Bender).
ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS CALCRIM No. 3149
867
© Judicial Council of California.
