COLJI-Crim. H:30

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “duress,” as a defense to [insert name(s) of offense(s)].

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] engaged in the prohibited conduct at the direction of

another person, because of the use or threatened use of

unlawful force upon him [her] [, or upon another person], and

2. a reasonable person in his [her] situation would have been

unable to resist the use or threatened use of unlawful force, and

3. he [she] did not intentionally or recklessly place himself

[herself] in a situation where it was foreseeable that he [she]

would be subjected to the use or threatened use of unlawful

force.

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].