COLJI-Crim. H:49

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “lawful purpose,” as a defense to violation of a protection order.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. the person who was [hired] [employed] [, or otherwise

contracted with to locate or assist in the location of the

protected person, was working pursuant to an agreement with

[counsel for defendant] [defendant, who was representing

himself [herself]], and

[2. the defendant sought discovery of the location of the protected

person for a lawful purpose as specified in a written agreement

between the person doing the locating and [defendant]

[defendant’s counsel], and

3. the written agreement stated that the location of the protected

person would not be disclosed to defendant by the person

doing the locating [or by defendant’s counsel] unless the

protected person agreed to the disclosure in writing or the

defendant obtained court permission to obtain disclosure of the

location for the stated lawful purpose.]

[2. the defendant was a defendant in a criminal case or a party to a

[civil case] [an action for dissolution of marriage] [, or other

legal proceeding], and

3. the written agreement stated that the lawful purpose for

locating the protected person was to interview or issue a lawful

subpoena or summons to the protected person [or for any other

lawful purpose relating to the proper investigation of the case.]]

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 violation of a protection order. In that event, you

must return a verdict of not guilty of violation of a protection 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 a protection order must

depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its

burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of that offense.