CO · jury_instructions
COLJI-Crim. 4-4:26.5
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT IN THE SECOND DEGREE (DISABILITY)
The elements of the crime of motor vehicle theft in the second degree
(disability) are:
1. That the defendant,
2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
3. knowingly,
4. obtained, exercised control over, received, or retained the
motor vehicle of another person, and
5. [he] [she] knew or should reasonably have known that the act
was without authorization or was by threat or deception, and
6. at the time of the act, the motor vehicle displayed a license plate
or placard indicating the motor vehicle belonged to a person
with a disability.
[7. and that the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by
the affirmative defense[s] in Instruction[s] ___.]
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has
proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find
the defendant guilty of motor vehicle theft in the second degree (disability).
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has
failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt,
you should find the defendant not guilty of motor vehicle theft in the
second degree (disability).
History
COLJI-Crim. (2025), Colorado Supreme Court Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee. The committee's page: "The 2025 edition was published online on February 25, 2026." © 2025 Supreme Court of Colorado for the State of Colorado.
Provenance
- Source
- www.coloradojudicial.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- crim-2026-02-25
- Content hash
999e195d796eb47f64f4ac355711905fc6b766cb4ea5d1a68b2d1c897eee353a
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.