CALCRIM No. 10

to 12, inclusive.

Depending on the device or substance used, give the bracketed definitions of

“explosive” or “destructive device,” inserting the appropriate definition from Penal

Code section 16460 or 16510, 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 a specific device listed in

Health and Safety Code section 12000 or Penal Code section 16460, the court may

instead give the bracketed sentence stating that the listed item “is an explosive” or

“is a destructive device.” For example, “A grenade is a destructive device.”

However, the court may not instruct the jury that the defendant used a destructive

device. For example, the court may not state that “the defendant used a destructive

device, a grenade,” or “the device used by the defendant, a grenade, was a

destructive device.” (People v. Dimitrov (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 18, 25–26 [39

Cal.Rptr.2d 257].)

If the device used is a bomb, the court may insert the word “bomb” in the bracketed

definition of destructive device without further definition. (People v. Dimitrov, supra,

33 Cal.App.4th at p. 25.) Appellate courts have held that the term “bomb” is not

vague and is understood in its “common, accepted, and popular sense.” (People v.

Quinn (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 251, 258 [129 Cal.Rptr. 139]; People v. Dimitrov,

supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p.25 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 257].) If the court wishes to define

the term “bomb,” the court may use the following definition: “A bomb is a device

carrying an explosive charge fused to blow up or detonate under certain conditions.”

(See People v. Morse (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 620, 647, fn. 8 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 343].)

If it is alleged in element 2 that the home or office of a judicial officer was attacked

(Pen. Code, § 11413(b)(7)), the final bracketed paragraph defining “judicial officer”

(see Pen. Code, § 11413(c)) may be given on request.