COLJI-Crim. H:17

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

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

name(s) of offense(s)].

The defendant was legally authorized to use deadly physical force

upon another person if:

1. he [she] she was in possession or control of any building, realty,

or other premises, [or was a person licensed or privileged to be

there,] and

2. he [she] reasonably believed the use of deadly physical force

was necessary to prevent what he [she] reasonably believed to

be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.

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].