COLJI-Crim. H:72

The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense

of “lack of knowledge and participation,” as a defense to [insert name of

offense relating to the retail sale of methamphetamine precursor drugs].

The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:

1. he [she] was an owner, operator, manager, or supervisor at the

store in which, or from which, the unlawful retail sale of a

methamphetamine precursor drug was made, and

2. he [she] did not have knowledge of the sale, and

3. he [she] did not participate in the sale, and

4. he [she] did not knowingly direct the person who made the sale

to commit [insert name of the retail sale of methamphetamine

precursor drug 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 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 [insert name of offense relating to the retail sale of

methamphetamine precursor drugs]. In that event, you must return a

verdict of not guilty of [insert name of offense relating to the retail sale of

methamphetamine precursor drugs].

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 relating to the

retail sale of methamphetamine precursor drugs] must depend upon your

determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof with

respect to the remaining elements of that offense.