COLJI-Crim. H:43

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “peace officer acting in good faith,” as a defense to false imprisonment.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] was a peace officer,

2. acting in good faith within the scope of his [her] duties.

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 false imprisonment. In that event, you must

return a verdict of not guilty of false imprisonment.

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 concerning the charge of false imprisonment must depend upon

your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof

with respect to the remaining elements of that offense.