CALCRIM No. 3228. Aggravating Factor: Induced Minor to Commit or Assist

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF
Bg8dd
3228.Aggravating Factor: Induced Minor to Commit or Assist
<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[s] that the defendant induced a minor to commit or assist in
the commission of the crime[s][ in Count[s] ].]
<Introductory paragraph for bifurcated trial>
[The People have alleged[ in Count[s] ] that the defendant
induced a minor to commit or assist in the commission of the crime[s].]
To prove this allegation, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant induced a minor to commit the crime[s];
OR
2. The defendant induced a minor to assist in the commission of the
crime[s].
Induced means persuaded, convinced, influenced, or instructed.
A minor is a person under the age of 18 years.
[Under the law, a person becomes one year older as soon as the first
minute of his or her birthday has begun.]
You may not find the allegation true unless all of you agree that the
People have proved that the defendant induced a minor either to commit
the crime or to assist in the commission of the crime. However, all of you
do not need to agree on which act[s] or conduct constitutes the
inducement.
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.
New March 2023; Revised March 2024*
943
Bg8de
* Denotes changes only to bench notes and other commentaries.
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 “[e]xcept where evidence supporting an aggravating
circumstance is admissible to prove or defend against the charged offense or
enhancement at trial, or it is otherwise authorized by law.” (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)(5).
• “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].
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
the defendant’s conduct was distinctively worse than an ordinary commission of the
underlying crime.
CALCRIM No. 3228 ENHANCEMENTS AND SENTENCING FACTORS
944
Bg8df
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. 3228
945

© Judicial Council of California.