COLJI-Crim. I:01

The evidence in this case has raised the defense of insanity, as a

defense to the crime[s] of [insert name of offense(s) here].

The defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the act[s]

if:

1. he [she] was so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the

commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right

from wrong with respect to that act; or

2. he [she] suffered from a condition of mind caused by a mental

disease or defect that prevented him [her] from forming a

culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime

charged.

But care should be taken not to confuse mental disease or defect with

moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger,

revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because,

when an act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to

the law.

In addition, “diseased or defective in mind” does not refer to an

abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial

conduct. Evidence of knowledge or awareness of the victim’s actual or

perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation

shall not constitute inability to distinguish right from wrong.

Similarly, “mental disease or defect” means only those severely

abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a

person’s perception or understanding of reality and that are not

attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive

substance. “Mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality

manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the

act[s]. In order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must

disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, both 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

that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the act[s],

which is an essential element of [insert name(s) of offense(s)]. In that event,

you must find the defendant not guilty and have the foreperson sign the

designated section of Part A of the verdict form[s] to indicate your

verdict[s].

After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has

met this burden of proof, then the prosecution has proved that the

defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act[s]. In

that event, your verdict[s] concerning the charge[s] of [insert name(s) of

offense(s)] must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution

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

[those] offense[s].