COLJI-Crim. H:52.5

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “scope of authority,” as a defense to designation of supplier.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. the defendant was a public servant acting within the scope of

his authority exercising the right to reject any material,

subcontractor, service, bond, or contract tendered by a bidder

or contractor because it did not meet bona fide specifications or

requirements relating to quality, availability, form, experience,

or financial responsibility.

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, the above numbered condition.

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 designation of supplier. In that event, you must

return a verdict of not guilty of designation of supplier.

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 designation of supplier must depend upon

your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof

with respect to the remaining elements of that offense.