COLJI-Crim. H:38

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “renunciation,” as a defense to conspiracy.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. after conspiring to commit a crime, he [she] thwarted the

success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a

complete and voluntary renunciation of his [her] criminal

intent, and

2. the renunciation was not motivated in whole or in part by: a

belief that a circumstance existed which increased the

probability of detection or apprehension of the defendant or

another or which made more difficult the consummation of the

crime; or a decision to postpone the crime until another time or

to substitute another victim or another but similar objective.

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 conspiracy to commit [insert name(s) of

offense(s)]. In that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of that

offense.

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 conspiracy to commit [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 offense.