Bindinglaw

CA · jury_instructions

CALCRIM No. 2952

Defenses: Negligent Control of Attack Dog (Pen. Code,

activein force · 2023-01-01 – presentcompiled-edition

§ 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
View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.