California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

594. Vehicular Manslaughter: Collision for Financial Gain

Download PDF
594.Vehicular Manslaughter: Collision for Financial Gain (Pen.
Code, § 192(c)(4))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with vehicular
manslaughter by causing a collision for financial gain [in violation of
Penal Code section 192(c)(4)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. While driving a vehicle, the defendant knowingly caused or
participated in a vehicular collision;
2. When the defendant acted, (he/she) knew that the purpose of the
vehicular collision was to make a false or fraudulent insurance
claim for financial gain;
3. When the defendant acted, (he/she) did so with intent to defraud;
4. The collision caused the death of another person.
A person intends to defraud if he or she intends to deceive another
person in order to cause a loss of, or damage to, a legal, financial, or
property right.
[For the purpose of this instruction, a person includes (a governmental
agency/a corporation/a business/an association/the body politic).]
[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable
consequence of the act and the 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 of
the circumstances established by the evidence.]
[There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only
if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantialfactor is
more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the
only factor that causes the death.]
New January 2006
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of
the crime.
If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate
cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590–591 [35 Cal.Rptr.
401].) If the evidence indicates that there was only one cause of death, the court
should give the “direct, natural, and probable” language in the first bracketed
paragraph on causation. If there is evidence of multiple causes of death, the court
should also give the “substantial factor” instruction in the second bracketed
paragraph on causation. (See People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43
Cal.Rptr.2d 135]; People v. Pike (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 732, 746–747 [243
Cal.Rptr. 54].)
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “For the purpose of this instruction” if
the evidence shows an intent to defraud an entity or association rather than a
natural person. (Pen. Code, § 8.)
Related Instructions
CALCRIM No. 2002, Insurance Fraud: Vehicle Accident.
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 192(c)(4).
Causation. People v. Rodriguez (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 433, 440 [8 Cal.Rptr.
• Intent to Defraud—Defined. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72
[127 Cal.Rptr.2d 770]; People v. Gaul-Alexander (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 735,
745 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 176].
• Intent to Defraud Entity. Pen. Code, § 8.
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against the
Person, § 236.
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Property, § 185.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,
Challenges to Crimes, § 140.04, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person,
§ 142.02[2][c], [4] (Matthew Bender).
Does Not Preclude Murder Charge
Section 192(c)(4) of the Penal Code states that: “This provision shall not be
construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.”
Probable and Natural Consequences of a Conspiracy
A nondriver coconspirator may be liable for a death that results from a conspiracy
to commit a vehicular collision for insurance fraud under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. (People v. Superior Court (Shamis) (1998) 58 Cal.App.4th
833, 842–843 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 388].)