Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.13-14

Under certain circumstances, the law justifies the use of force or violence upon another when it

is done in self-defense. In this case, the defendant has alleged that the plaintiff cannot prevail on

(his/her) claim of <insert as applicable: (assault/battery/false imprisonment)> because the

defendant was acting in self-defense. If you find that the defendant has proved by a

preponderance of the evidence all of the elements of self-defense set forth below, then you must

find for the defendant on the (assault/battery/false imprisonment) claim(s).

The defendant claims that if you find that (he/she) committed a(n) (assault/battery/false

imprisonment), the defendant was justified because (he/she) acted throughout this incident solely

in defense of (his/her) own person against an attack made upon (him/her). To avail

(himself/herself) of this defense, the defendant first must have reasonably believed that (he/she)

was in imminent danger of suffering force or violence to (his/her) person and that it was

reasonably necessary for (him/her) to act in self-defense. Second, the defendant must not have

been the aggressor, that is to say, (he/she) must not have been the one who instigated the

physical conflict. But even if you find that the defendant was not the aggressor, the defendant

must have used only such force or violence as was reasonably necessary for (him/her) to protect

(himself/herself) from injury. In other words, the defendant cannot have exceeded the bounds of

conduct which a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, would consider necessary for

(his/her) protection.