COLJI-Crim. H:44

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of [“child in danger”] [“child not enticed”], as a defense to violation of

custody.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

[1. he [she] reasonably believed that his [her] conduct was

necessary to preserve the child from danger to his [her]

welfare.]

[1. the child was at the time more than fourteen years old, and

2. he [she] was taken away at his [her] own instigation,

3. without enticement, and

4. the defendant had no purpose to commit a crime with or

against the child.]

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 condition[s].

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 violation of custody. In that event, you must

return a verdict of not guilty of violation of a custody order.

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 violation of custody must depend upon

your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof

with respect to the remaining elements of that offense.