Justia Criminal Law Center California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2025) Weapons CALCRIM No. 2501. Carrying Concealed Explosive or Dirk or Dagger (Pen. Code, §§ 21310, 16470)

CALCRIM No. 2501. Carrying Concealed Explosive or Dirk or Dagger (Pen. Code, §§ 21310, 16470)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2025 edition)

Download PDF

2501.Carrying Concealed Explosive or Dirk or Dagger (Pen.

Code, §§ 21310, 16470)

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with unlawfully carrying a

concealed (explosive/dirk or dagger) [in violation of Penal Code section

21310].

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

prove that:

1. The defendant carried on (his/her) person (an explosive/a dirk or

dagger);

2. The defendant knew that (he/she) was carrying it;

3. It was substantially concealed on the defendant’s person;

AND

4. The defendant knew that it (was an explosive/could readily be

used as a stabbing weapon).

The People do not have to prove that the defendant used or intended to

use the alleged (explosive/dirk or dagger) as a weapon.

[An explosive is any substance, or combination of substances, (1) whose

main or common purpose is to detonate or rapidly combust and (2) that

is capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat.]

[An explosive is also any substance whose main purpose is to be

combined with other substances to create a new substance that can

release gas and heat rapidly or relatively instantaneously.]

[<insert type of explosive from Health & Saf. Code, § 12000>

is an explosive.]

[A dirk or dagger is a knife or other instrument with or without a

handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may

inflict great bodily injury or death. Great bodily injury means significant

or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor

or moderate harm.]

[A (pocketknife/nonlocking folding knife/folding knife that is not

prohibited by Penal Code section 21510) is not a dirk or dagger unless

the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.]

[A knife carried in a sheath and worn openly suspended from the waist

of the wearer is not concealed.]

[When deciding whether the defendant knew the object (was an

1575

explosive/could be used as a stabbing weapon), consider all the

surrounding circumstances, including the time and place of possession.

Consider also (the destination of the defendant[,]/ the alteration of the

object from standard form[,]) and other facts, if any.]

[The People allege that the defendant carried the following weapons:

<insert description of each weapon when multiple items

alleged>. You may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree

that the People have proved that the defendant carried at least one of

these weapons and you all agree on which weapon (he/she) carried and

when (he/she) carried it.]

New January 2006; Revised February 2012, September 2020

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the

crime.

If the prosecution alleges under a single count that the defendant possessed multiple

weapons and the possession was “fragmented as to time . . . [or] space,” the court

has a sua sponte duty to instruct on unanimity. (See People v. Wolfe (2003) 114

Cal.App.4th 177, 184-185 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 483].) Give the bracketed paragraph

beginning “The People allege that the defendant possessed the following weapons,”

inserting the items alleged.

Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “When deciding whether” only if the

object was not designed solely for use as a stabbing weapon but may have innocent

uses. (People v. Fannin (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1404 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 496];

People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 620-621, fn. 9 [47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d

100].)

When instructing on the meaning of “explosive,” if the explosive is listed in Health

and Safety Code section 12000, the court may use the bracketed sentence stating,

“ is an explosive.” For example, “Nitroglycerine is an explosive.”

However, the court may not instruct the jury that the defendant used an explosive.

For example, the court may not state, “The defendant used an explosive,

nitroglycerine,” or “The substance used by the defendant, nitroglycerine, was an

explosive.” (See People v. Dimitrov (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 18, 25-26 [39

Cal.Rptr.2d 257]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 444-445 [250 Cal.Rptr.

604, 758 P.2d 1135].)

If the court gives the instruction on a “folding knife that is not prohibited by Penal

Code section 21510,” give a modified version of CALCRIM No. 2502, Possession,

etc., of Switchblade Knife.

The second sentence of the great bodily injury definition could result in error if the

prosecution improperly argues great bodily injury may be shown by greater than

CALCRIM No. 2501 WEAPONS

1576

minor injury alone. (Compare People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519,

533-535 [258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867] [the definition was reasonably susceptible to

prosecutor’s erroneous argument that the injury need only be greater than minor]

with People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 466 [260 Cal.Rptr.3d 86]

[upholding instructions containing great bodily injury definition as written].)

AUTHORITY

• Elements. Pen. Code, § 21310.

• Need Not Prove Intent to Use. People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 328

[96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52].

• Knowledge Required. People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 331-332 [96

Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52].

• Substantial Concealment. People v. Wharton (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 72, 75 [6

Cal.Rptr.2d 673]; People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955 [134

Cal.Rptr. 885].

• Explosive Defined. Health & Saf. Code, § 12000; People v. Clark (1990) 50

Cal.3d 583, 604 [268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127].

• Dirk or Dagger Defined. Pen. Code, § 16470.

• Dirk or Dagger - No Length Requirement. In re Victor B. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th

521, 526 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 362].

• Dirk or Dagger - Object Not Originally Designed as Knife. In re Victor B.

(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 521, 525-526 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 362].

• Dirk or Dagger - Capable of Ready Use. People v. Sisneros (1997) 57

Cal.App.4th 1454, 1457 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 782].

• Dirk or Dagger - Pocketknives. In re Luke W. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 650,

655-656 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 905]; In re George W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1208,

1215 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 868].

RELATED ISSUES

Knowledge Element

“[T]he relevant language of section 12020 is unambiguous and establishes that

carrying a concealed dirk or dagger does not require an intent to use the concealed

instrument as a stabbing weapon.” (People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 328

[96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52] [interpreting now-repealed Pen. Code, § 12020].)

However, “to commit the offense, a defendant must still have the requisite guilty

mind: that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon

his or her person an instrument ‘that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.’

([now repealed] § 12020(a), (c)(24).) A defendant who does not know that he is

carrying the weapon or that the concealed instrument may be used as a stabbing

weapon is therefore not guilty of violating section 12020.” (Id. at pp. 331-332

WEAPONS CALCRIM No. 2501

1577

[emphasis in original] [referencing repealed Pen. Code § 12020; see now Pen. Code,

§§ 16479, 21310].)

Definition of Dirk or Dagger

The definition of “dirk or dagger” contained in Penal Code section 16470 was

effective on January 1, 2012. Prior decisions interpreting the meaning of “dirk or

dagger” should be viewed with caution. (See People v. Mowatt (1997) 56

Cal.App.4th 713, 719-720 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 722] [comparing old and new

definitions]; People v. Sisneros (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1457 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d

782] [same]; In re George W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1215 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d

868] [discussing 1997 amendment].)

Dirk or Dagger - “Capable of Ready Use”

“[T]he ‘capable of ready use’ requirement excludes from the definition of dirk or

dagger a device carried in a configuration that requires assembly before it can be

utilized as a weapon.” (People v. Sisneros (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1457 [67

Cal.Rptr.2d 782].)

Dirk or Dagger - “Pocketknife”

“Although they may not have folding blades, small knives obviously designed to be

carried in a pocket in a closed state, and which cannot be used until there have been

several intervening manipulations, comport with the implied legislative intent that

such knives do not fall within the definition of proscribed dirks or daggers but are a

type of pocketknife excepted from the statutory proscription.” (In re Luke W. (2001)

88 Cal.App.4th 650, 655-656 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 905].)

SECONDARY SOURCES

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public

Peace and Welfare, § 213.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,

Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][a][i] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 144, Crimes

Against Order, § 144.01[1][a] (Matthew Bender).

CALCRIM No. 2501 WEAPONS

1578

Page last reviewed April 2025

Today on Verdict

Can Judges in Texas Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples in Solemnizing Marriages? Part Two in a Two-Part Series on the Fifth Circuit’s Umphress v. Hall Case

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge’s federal lawsuit seeking protection from disciplinary action for refusing to perform same-sex marriages based on religious beliefs.

Just Say No to “Catholic Public” School

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin analyzes a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State of Oklahoma is challenging the approval of a publicly funded Catholic charter school, arguing that it violates both state and federal constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion.