COLJI-Crim. H:39

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of [“object achieved”] [“sole victim”] “inevitably incident”] as a defense to

criminal solicitation.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

[1. had the criminal object been achieved he [she] would have been

the sole victim of the offense; or his [her] conduct would have

been inevitably incident to its commission; or he [she]

otherwise would not have been guilty under Instruction ___,

defining [insert name of felony offense(s) solicited], or under

Instruction ___, defining complicity liability.]

[1. he [she] was the sole victim of the offense; or his [her] conduct

was inevitably incident to commission of the offense.]

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, the above numbered condition.

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 solicitation. 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 criminal solicitation must depend

upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of

proof with respect to the remaining elements of that offense.