COLJI-Crim. H:58

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “conduct of the person or animal attacked” as a defense to unlawful

ownership of a dangerous dog.

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. The dangerous dog had not engaged in or been trained for

animal fighting, and

[2. at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which caused

[injury to] [the death of] a domestic animal, the domestic

animal was at large, was an estray, and had entered upon the

property of the owner and the attack began, but did not

necessarily end, upon such property.]

[2. at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which caused

[injury to] [the death of] a domestic animal, the animal was

biting or otherwise attacking the dangerous dog or its owner.]

[2. at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which caused

[injury to] [the death of] a person, the victim of the attack was

committing or attempting to commit [insert name of criminal

offense, other than a petty offense], against the dog’s owner,

and the attack did not occur on the owner’s property.]

[2. at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which caused

[injury to] [the death of] a person, the victim of the attack was

committing or attempting to commit [insert name of criminal

offense, other than a petty offense], against a person on the

owner’s property or the property itself and the attack began,

but did not necessarily end, upon such property.]

[2. the person who was the victim of the attack by the dangerous

dog tormented, provoked, abused, or inflicted injury upon the

dog in such an extreme manner which resulted in the attack.]

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 unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog. In that

event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of unlawful ownership of a

dangerous dog.

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 unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog

must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its

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