COLJI-Crim. H:47.7

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “reasonable belief or extended absence,” as a defense to bigamy.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. at the time of the cohabitation, subsequent marriage, or

subsequent civil union,

[2. the defendant reasonably believed the prior [spouse] [civil

union partner] to be dead.]

[2. the prior [spouse] [civil union partner] had been continually

absent for a period of five years during which time the

defendant did not know the prior [spouse] [civil union partner]

to be alive.]

[2. the defendant reasonably believed that he [she] was [legally

eligible to remarry or legally eligible to enter into a civil union]

[legally eligible to marry or legally eligible to enter into a civil

union].]

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 bigamy. In that event, you must return a verdict

of not guilty of bigamy.

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 bigamy must depend upon your

determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof with

respect to the remaining elements of that offense.