CALCRIM No. 416 is not unconstitutional. On appeal from his conviction for sale of cocaine base, appellant challenged the constitutionality of CALCRIM No. 416, the uncharged conspiracy instruction. The jury was instructed that a member of a conspiracy is criminally responsible for acts and statements made by other members to help accomplish the conspiracy’s goal. He contended that it impermissibly directed jurors to find that a conspiracy exists, reduces the burden of proof, and violates due process and jury trial rights. The appellate court rejected the arguments, finding that the jury was properly instructed. Further, CALCRIM No. 416 was not erroneous because it failed to set forth the two pronged specific intent requirement. The instruction also did not reduce the prosecution’s burden of proof.