COLJI-Crim. H:18.5

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “rendering emergency assistance to an at-risk person or an animal in a

locked vehicle,” as a defense to [criminal mischief] [criminal trespass]

[criminal tampering involving property].

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] forcibly entered a locked vehicle, and

2. the vehicle was not a law enforcement vehicle, and

3. an at-risk person or an animal was present in the vehicle and

the defendant had a reasonable belief that the at-risk person or

the animal was in imminent danger of death or suffering

serious bodily injury, and

4. the defendant determined that the vehicle was locked and that

forcible entry was necessary, and

5. the defendant made a reasonable effort to locate the owner or

operator of the vehicle and documented the color, make, model,

license plate number, and location of the vehicle, and

6. the defendant contacted a local law enforcement agency, the

fire department, animal control, or a 911 operator prior to

forcibly entering the vehicle, and did not interfere with, hinder,

or fail to obey a lawful order of any person duly empowered

with police authority or other first responder duties who was

discharging or apparently discharging his or her duties, and

7. the defendant used no more force than he [she] believed was

reasonably necessary, and

[8. the defendant remained with the at-risk person or the animal,

reasonably close to the vehicle, until a law enforcement officer,

emergency medical service provider, animal control officer, or

other first responder arrived at the scene.]

[8. the defendant left the scene before a law enforcement officer,

emergency medical service provider, animal control officer, or

other first responder arrived at the scene, and

9. it was necessary for the defendant to leave, and

10. before leaving, the defendant placed a notice on the windshield

of the vehicle that included his [her] name and contact

information and the name and contact information of the

location, if any, to which the defendant took the at-risk person

or the animal when he [she] left the scene, and

11. contacted law enforcement, animal control, or other first

responder to advise them of his [her] name and contact

information, that he [she] was leaving the scene, and the name

and contact information of the location, if any, to which the

defendant was taking the at-risk person or the animal.]

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 [criminal mischief] [criminal trespass] [criminal

tampering involving property]. 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 [criminal mischief] [criminal trespass]

[criminal tampering involving property] 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].