CALCRIM No. 415

[I have explained that (the/a) defendant may be guilty of a crime if (he/

she) either commits the crime or aids and abets the crime. (He/She) may

also be guilty if (he/she) is a member of a conspiracy.]

(The defendant[s]/Defendant[s] <insert name[s]>) (is/are)

charged [in Count] with conspiracy to commit

<insert alleged crime[s]> [in violation of Penal Code section 182].

To prove that (the/a) defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

1. The defendant intended to agree and did agree with [one or more

of] (the other defendant[s]/ [or] <insert name[s] or

description[s] of coparticipant[s]>) to commit <insert

alleged crime[s]>;

2. At the time of the agreement, the defendant and [one or more of]

the other alleged member[s] of the conspiracy intended that one

or more of them would commit <insert alleged

crime[s]>;

3. (The/One of the) defendant[s][,] [or <insert name[s]

or description[s] of coparticipant[s]>][,] [or (both/all) of them]

committed [at least one of] the following alleged overt act[s] to

accomplish <insert alleged crime[s]>:

<insert the alleged overt acts>;

AND

4. [At least one of these/This] overt act[s] was committed in

California.

To decide whether (the/a) defendant committed (this/these) overt act[s],

consider all of the evidence presented about the act[s].

To decide whether (the/a) defendant and [one or more of] the other

alleged member[s] of the conspiracy intended to commit

<insert alleged crime[s]>, please refer to the separate instructions that I

(will give/have given) you on (that/those) crime[s].

The People must prove that the members of the alleged conspiracy had

an agreement and intent to commit <insert alleged

crime[s]>. The People do not have to prove that any of the members of

the alleged conspiracy actually met or came to a detailed or formal

agreement to commit (that/one or more of those) crime[s]. An agreement

may be inferred from conduct if you conclude that members of the

alleged conspiracy acted with a common purpose to commit the crime[s].

An overt act is an act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy

that is done to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. The overt act

must happen after the defendant has agreed to commit the crime. The

overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit

the crime, but it does not have to be a criminal act itself.

[Y ou must all agree that at least one alleged overt act was committed in

California by at least one alleged member of the conspiracy, but you do

not have to all agree on which specific overt act or acts were committed

or who committed the overt act or acts.]

[Y ou must make a separate decision as to whether each defendant was a

member of the alleged conspiracy.]

[The People allege that the defendant[s] conspired to commit the

following crimes: <insert alleged crime[s]>. Y ou may not

find (the/a) defendant guilty of conspiracy unless all of you agree that

the People have proved that the defendant conspired to commit at least

one of these crimes, and you all agree which crime (he/she) conspired to

commit.] [Y ou must also all agree on the degree of the crime.]

[A member of a conspiracy does not have to personally know the identity

or roles of all the other members.]

[Someone who merely accompanies or associates with members of a

conspiracy but who does not intend to commit the crime is not a

member of the conspiracy.]

[Evidence that a person did an act or made a statement that helped

accomplish the goal of the conspiracy is not enough, by itself, to prove

that the person was a member of the conspiracy.]

New January 2006; Revised August 2006, February 2014