COLJI-Crim. H:12

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “deadly physical force in defense of person,” as a defense to [insert

name(s) of offense(s)].

The defendant was legally authorized to use deadly physical force

upon another person without first retreating if:

1. he [she] used that deadly physical force in order to defend

himself [herself] [or a third person] from what he [she]

reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful

physical force by that other person, and

2. he [she] reasonably believed a lesser degree of force was

inadequate, and

3. [he [she] had a reasonable ground to believe, and did believe,

that he [she] or another person was in imminent danger of

being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.]

[the other person was using or reasonably appeared about to

use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business

establishment while committing or attempting to commit

burglary.]

[the other person was committing or reasonably appeared

about to commit kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, or assault

in the first or second degree.]

[, and]

[4. he [she] did not, with intent to cause bodily injury or death to

another person, provoke the use of unlawful physical force by

that other person.]

[5. he [she] was not the initial aggressor, or, if he [she] was the

initial aggressor, he [she] had withdrawn from the encounter

and effectively communicated to the other person his [her]

intent to do so, and the other person nevertheless continued or

threatened the use of unlawful physical force.]

[6. the physical force involved was not the product of an

unauthorized combat by agreement.]

[7. the use of physical force against another was not based on the

discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the

victim’s actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender

expression, or sexual orientation, including but not limited to

under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted

nonforcible romantic or sexual advance toward the defendant.]

The prosecution has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,

that the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In

order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must disprove, beyond

a reasonable doubt, at least one of the above numbered conditions.

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has

failed to meet this burden of proof, then the prosecution has failed to prove

the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense, which

is an essential element of [insert name(s) of offense(s)]. In that event, you

must return a verdict of not guilty of [that] [those] offense[s].

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has

met this burden of proof, then the prosecution has proved the defendant’s

conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In that event, your

verdict[s] concerning the charge[s] of [insert name(s) of offense(s)] must

depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its

burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of [that] [those]

offense[s].