The jury was adequately instructed with CALCRIM No. 2302. In his appeal from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale, appellant challenged CALCRIM No. 2302, which he contended erroneously omitted the element of “dominion and control” and “knowing exercise of control” from its definition of possession of methamphetamine for sale. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that the instruction correctly expresses the knowledge requirement. It correctly stated the element of possession and knowledge in a manner reasonable jurors were able to understand.
The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury to reread CALCRIM No. 2302 without providing more information. Appellant further claimed that the court erred by not providing a response to a jury question as to the meaning and application of the element of control, other than to reread CALCRIM 2302. The appellate court found no error. The instruction adequately explains the element of control and how to apply it. Any detailed response to the question would have put the court in the jury’s role of deliberating whether appellant controlled the substances.