COLJI-Crim. H:54

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “news reporter or media person,” as a defense to disobedience of a

public safety order under riot conditions.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] was a news reporter or other person observing or

recording the events on behalf of the public press or other news

media, and

2. he [she] was not physically obstructing efforts by police, fire,

military or other forces to cope with the riot or impending riot.

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 disobedience of a public safety order under riot

conditions. In that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of

disobedience of a public safety order under riot conditions.

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 disobedience of a public safety order

under riot conditions must depend upon your determination whether the

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

elements of that offense.