COLJI-Crim. H:45

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “uncontrollable circumstances,” as a defense to failure to [register]

[verify location] as a sex offender.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] was prevented from complying by uncontrollable

circumstances, and

2. he [she] did not contribute to the creation of the circumstances

in reckless disregard of the requirement to comply, and

3. he [she] complied as soon as the circumstances ceased to exist.

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 failure to [register] [verify location] as a sex

offender. In that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of failure to

[register] [verify location] as a sex offender.

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 failure to [register] [verify location] as a

sex offender must depend upon your determination whether the

prosecution has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining

elements of that offense.