CALCRIM No. 441

The defendant is charged [in Count] with soliciting another

person to commit a crime [in violation of Penal Code section 653f].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

1. The defendant requested [or <insert other synonyms

for solicit as appropriate>] another person to commit [or join in

the commission of] the crime of <insert target

offense>;

[AND]

2. The defendant intended that the crime of <insert

target offense> be committed(;/.)

<Give element 3 when instructing that person solicited must receive

message; see Bench Notes.>

[AND

3. The other person received the communication containing the

request.]

To decide whether the defendant intended that the person commit

<insert target offense>, please refer to the separate

instructions that I (will give/have given) you on that crime.

<Alternative A—Corroboration by One Witness>

[The crime of solicitation must be proved by the testimony of at least

one witness and corroborating evidence.]

<Alternative B—Corroboration by Two Witnesses>

[The crime of solicitation must be proved by the testimony of at least

two witnesses or by the testimony of one witness and corroborating

evidence.]

Corroborating evidence is evidence that (1) tends to connect the

defendant with the commission of the crime and (2) is independent of the

evidence given by the witness who testified about the solicitation or

independent of the facts testified to by that witness. Corroborating

evidence need not be strong or even enough to establish each element by

itself. Corroborating evidence may include the defendant’s acts,

statements, or conduct, or any other circumstance that tends to connect

(him/her) to the crime.

[A person is guilty of solicitation even if the crime solicited is not

completed or even started. The person solicited does not have to agree to

commit the crime.]

[If you find the defendant guilty of solicitation, you must decide how

many crimes (he/she) solicited. When deciding this question, consider the

following factors:

1. Were the crimes solicited part of a plan with a single objective or

motive or did each crime solicited have a different objective or

motive?

2. Were the crimes solicited to be committed at the same time?

3. Were the crimes solicited to be committed in the same place?

4. Were the crimes solicited to be committed in the same way?

5. Was the payment, if any, for the crimes solicited one amount or

were different amounts solicited for each crime?

Consider all of these factors when deciding whether the defendant’s

alleged acts were a single crime or <insert number of

solicitations alleged by the People> separate crimes of solicitation.]

New January 2006