COLJI-Crim. H:70

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of [“lack of knowledge”] [“reported conduct”], as a defense to [insert name

of offense from section 18-18-411(1), (2)].

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

[1. The person who committed the [insert description of controlled

substance offense] did so while unlawfully on or in the

structure or place, and

2. the defendant lacked knowledge of the unlawful presence of

that other person.]

[1. the defendant had notified a law enforcement agency with

jurisdiction to make an arrest for the [insert description of

controlled substance offense].]

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 condition[s].

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 [insert name of offense from section 18-18-411(1),

(2)]. In that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of [insert name of

offense from section 18-18-411(1), (2)].

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 [insert name of offense from section 18-18-

411(1), (2)] must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution

has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of that

offense.