COLJI-Crim. H:20

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “peace officer’s use of deadly physical force,” 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] was a peace officer, and

[2. nonviolent means would have been ineffective in effecting an

arrest, preventing an escape, or preventing an imminent threat

of serious bodily injury or death to himself [herself] or another

person, and

3. he [she] did not use deadly physical force to apprehend a

person who was suspected of only a minor or nonviolent

offense, and

4. he [she] used only a degree of force consistent with the

minimization of injury to others, and

[5. he [she] used deadly physical force to make an arrest only

when all other means of apprehension were unreasonable

given the circumstances, and

6. the arrest was for a felony involving conduct including the use

or threatened use of deadly physical force, and

7. the suspect posed an immediate threat of death or serious

bodily injury to the peace officer or another person, and

8. the force employed did not create a substantial risk of injury to

other persons, and]

9. he [she] identified himself [herself] as a peace officer and gave a

clear verbal warning of his [her] intent to use firearms or other

deadly physical force, with sufficient time for the warning to be

observed, unless to do so would have unduly placed peace

officers at risk of injury or would have created a risk of death or

injury to other persons.]

[2. he [she] had an objectively reasonable belief that a lesser degree

of force was inadequate, and

3. he [she] had objectively reasonable grounds to believe, and did

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

of being killed or of receiving serious bodily injury.]

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].