CALCRIM No. 416

The People have presented evidence of a conspiracy. A member of a

conspiracy is criminally responsible for the acts or statements of any

other member of the conspiracy done to help accomplish the goal of the

conspiracy.

To prove that (the/a) defendant was a member of a conspiracy in this

case, 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 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 or another member of the

conspiracy 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.

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 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 decide as to each defendant whether he or she was a member

of the alleged conspiracy.]

[The People contend that the defendant[s] conspired to commit one of

the following crimes: <insert alleged crime[s]>. Y ou may

not find (the/a) defendant guilty under a conspiracy theory 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, August 2016, February 2026*

* Denotes changes only to bench notes and other commentaries.