CALCRIM No. 2840

Returns

The People presented evidence that the defendant (may have/did) not file

[d] [a] tax return[s] for [a] year[s] not charged in this case.

Y ou may consider this evidence only if the People have proved by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did not file [a] tax

return[s] for (that/those) year[s]. Proof by a preponderance of the

evidence is a different standard of proof from proof beyond a reasonable

doubt. A fact is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if you

conclude that it is more likely than not that the fact is true.

If the People have not met this burden, you must disregard this evidence

entirely.

If you conclude that the defendant did not file [a] tax return[s] for (that/

those) year[s], you may, but are not required to, consider that evidence

for the limited purpose of deciding whether:

<A. Intent>

[The defendant acted with the intent to <insert specific

intent required to prove the offense alleged> in this

case](./;)

[OR]

<B. Accident or Mistake>

[The defendant’s alleged actions were not the result of mistake or

accident.]

Do not consider this evidence for any other purpose [except for the

limited purpose of <insert other permitted purpose, e.g.,

determining the defendant’s credibility>].

If you conclude that the defendant did not file [a] tax return[s] for (that/

those) year[s], that conclusion is only one factor to consider along with

all the other evidence. It is not sufficient by itself to prove that the

defendant is guilty of <insert charged offense>. The People

must still prove (the/each) (charge/ [and] allegation) beyond a reasonable

doubt.

[Do not conclude from this evidence that the defendant has a bad

character or is disposed to commit crime.]

New January 2006; Revised April 2008, February 2026