CALCRIM No. 3227. Aggravating Factor: Induced Others to Participate or Occupied Position of Leadership or Dominance

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF
Bg8d5
3227.Aggravating Factor: Induced Others to Participate or
Occupied Position of Leadership or Dominance
<Introductory paragraph for nonbifurcated trial>
[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 crimes[s] of <insert lesser offense[s]>], you must then
decide whether[, for each crime,] the People have proved the additional
allegation that the defendant induced others to participate in committing
the crime[s] or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other
participants in the commission of the crime[s].]
<Introductory paragraph for bifurcated trial>
[The People have alleged[ in Count[s] ] that the defendant
induced others to participate in committing the crime[s] or occupied a
position of leadership or dominance of other participants in the
commission of the crime[s].]
To prove this allegation, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant induced others to participate in the commission of
the crime[s];
OR
2. The defendant occupied a position of leadership or dominance
over other participants during commission of the crime[s].
Induced means persuaded, convinced, influenced, or instructed.
You may not find the allegation true unless all of you agree that the
People have proved that the defendant either induced others to
participate or occupied a position of leadership or dominance. However,
all of you do not need to agree on which act[s] or conduct constitutes
inducing others to participate or occupying a position of leadership or
dominance.
You may not find the allegation true unless all of you agree that the
People have proved that the defendant’s conduct was distinctively worse
than an ordinary commission of the underlying crime.
[You must decide whether the People have proved this allegation for
each crime and return a separate finding for each crime.]
The People have the burden of proving this allegation beyond a
reasonable doubt. If the People have not met this burden, you must find
that the allegation has not been proved.
939
Bg8d6
New March 2023
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
This instruction is provided for the court to use for an aggravating factor as stated
in California Rules of Court, rule 4.421. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1170, 1170.1; see also
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856].)
Do not give an aggravating factor that is an element of the convicted offense. (Pen.
Code, § 1170(b)(5).)
The court should specify which crimes the aggravating factor pertains to if it applies
to one or more specific counts.
The court must bifurcate the jury’s determination of the aggravating factors on the
defendant’s request. (Pen. Code, § 1170(b)(2).) For a bifurcated trial, the court must
also give CALCRIM No. 221, Reasonable Doubt: Bifurcated Trial.
AUTHORITY
Aggravating Factor. California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(4).
“Aggravating Fact” Defined. People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 817 [62
Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 161 P.3d 1130]; People v. Hicks (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 496,
512 [225 Cal.Rptr.3d 682]; People v. Zamarron (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 865, 872
[36 Cal.Rptr.2d 17]; People v. Moreno (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 103, 110 [179
Cal.Rptr. 879] [“The essence of ‘aggravation’ relates to the effect of a particular
fact in making the offense distinctively worse than the ordinary”].
Unanimity Not Required Regarding Facts Underlying the Aggravating Factor.
People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97, 142-148 [283 Cal.Rptr.3d 32, 493
P.3d 815].
More Than One Participant Required. People v. Berry (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d
184, 198 [172 Cal.Rptr. 756, 763-764].
Leadership Not Equivalent to Dominance. People v. Kellett (1982) 134
Cal.App.3d 949, 961 [185 Cal.Rptr. 1].
Factor Requires More Than Being Willing Participant. People v. Searle (1989)
213 Cal.App.3d 1091, 1097 [261 Cal.Rptr. 898].
COMMENTARY
Distinctively Worse Than The Ordinary
The committee is aware of Johnson v. United States (2015) 576 U.S. 591, 597-598
[135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569], in which the United States Supreme Court held
that determining what constitutes an “ordinary” violation of a criminal statute may
create a constitutional vagueness problem. Nevertheless, in light of California case
law that has never been disapproved (see, e.g., People v. Moreno, supra, 128
Cal.App.3d at p. 110), the committee has elected to include in the instruction the
state law requirement that an aggravating factor may not be found to be true unless
CALCRIM No. 3227 ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS
940
Bg8d7
the defendant’s conduct was distinctively worse than an ordinary commission of the
underlying crime.
RELATED ISSUES
Prohibition Against Dual Use of Facts at Sentencing
The jury may find true multiple aggravating factors based on the same underlying
fact. However, at sentencing, a single underlying fact may not support more than
one aggravating factor. (People v. Fernandez (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 669, 680 [276
Cal.Rptr. 631].)
ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS CALCRIM No. 3227
941

© Judicial Council of California.