CA · jury_instructions
CALCRIM No. 2952
Defenses: Negligent Control of Attack Dog (Pen. Code,
§ 399.5(c))
Y ou must find the defendant not guilty of failing to use ordinary care in
(owning/ [or] controlling) an attack dog if:
<Alternative A—trespassing>
[<insert name[s] of person[s] allegedly attacked> (was/
were) trespassing at the time (he/she/they) (was/were) bitten by the
dog][; or/.]
<Alternative B—provocation>
[<insert name[s] of person[s] allegedly attacked>
provoked the dog or otherwise contributed to (his/her/their) own
injuries][; or/.]
<Alternative C—dog doing military or police work>
[The dog was being used in military or police work and the biting
occurred while the dog was actually performing in that capacity.]
[A trespasser is someone who (enters a residence without the consent of
the (owner/owner’s agent/person who lawfully possesses the property)[,]/
[or] enters land (enclosed by a fence/ [or] posted with “no trespassing”
signs) and refuses to leave the property when requested to do so by the
(owner/owner’s agent/person who lawfully possesses the property)[,]/ [or]
<insert other definition of trespasser , see Pen. Code, § 602 et
seq.>).]
[Provoking includes, but is not limited to, approaching, in a threatening
manner, the owner or custodian of a dog held on a leash so that the dog
reacts in a protective manner.]
<Alternative A—reasonable doubt standard>
[The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
( <insert name[s] of person[s] allegedly attacked> (was/were)
not trespassing[,]/ [or] [<insert name[s] of person[s]
allegedly attacked>] did not provoke the dog[,]/ [or] the dog was not
being used in military or police work). If the People have not met this
burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.]
<Alternative B—preponderance standard>
[The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a
preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard of proof than
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet the burden of proof by a
preponderance of the evidence, the defendant must prove that it is more
likely than not that ( <insert name[s] of person[s] allegedly
attacked> (was/were) trespassing[,]/ [or] [<insert name[s] of
person[s] allegedly attacked>] provoked the dog[,]/ [or] the dog was being
used in military or police work).]
New January 2006
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- calcrim-2023
- Content hash
1367574d68e3e0c88cded2ae10aab5f9d10759e4c57dd6802a83ca15a4ba2953
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.