COLJI-Crim. H:41

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “disengagement,” as a defense to the offense of second-degree murder

(felony murder).

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] was not the only participant in the [insert name of

offense(s) here], and

2. he [she] did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit,

request, command, importune, cause, or aid the commission

thereof, and

3. he [she] was not armed with a deadly weapon, and

4. he [she] did not engage himself [herself] in, or intend to engage

in, or have a reasonable ground to believe that any other

participant intended to engage in, conduct likely to result in

death or 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 second-degree murder (felony

murder).

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 second-degree murder (felony

murder) must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution

has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of that

offense.