ICJI 1517

ICJI 1517 SELF-DEFENSE

A [homicide] [battery] is justifiable if the defendant was acting in [self-defense] [defense of another].

In order to find that the defendant acted in [self-defense] [defense of another], all of the following conditions must be found to have been in existence at the time of the [killing] [striking]:

1. The defendant must have believed that [the defendant] [another person] was in imminent danger of [death or great bodily harm] [bodily harm].

2. In addition to that belief, the defendant must have believed that the action the defendant took was necessary to save [the defendant] [another person] from the danger presented.

3. The circumstances must have been such that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would have believed that [the defendant] [another person] was in imminent danger of [death or great bodily injury] [bodily injury] and believed that the action taken was necessary.

4. The defendant must have acted only in response to that danger and not for some other motivation.

[5. When there is no longer any reasonable appearance of danger, the right of (self-defense) (defense of another) ends.]

In deciding upon the reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs, you should determine what an ordinary and reasonable person might have concluded from all the facts and circumstances which the evidence shows existed at that time, and not with the benefit of hindsight.

The danger must have been present and imminent, or must have so appeared to a reasonable person under the circumstances. A bare fear of [death or great bodily injury] [bodily injury] is not sufficient to justify a [homicide] [battery]. The defendant must have acted under the influence of fears that only a reasonable person would have had in a similar position.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the [homicide] [battery] was not justifiable. If there is a reasonable doubt whether the [homicide] [battery] was justifiable, you must find the defendant not guilty.

Comment

I.C. ss 18-4009, 18-4010 & 18-4013. State v. Baker, 103 Idaho 43, 644 P.2d 365(Ct. App. 1982); State v. Wilson, 41 Idaho 616, 243 P.2d 359 (1925).

This instruction may be modified by the appropriate selection of bracketed language for use in cases involving defense of others as well as for use in either homicide or battery cases.

Use number 5 only where "abatement" appears from the evidence.

Idaho statutory and case law previously cast the burden upon a homicide defendant to prove that the defendant's actions were excusable, as in self-defense. However, in that particular circumstance, the underlying statute, I.C. s 19-2112, was repealed in 1977 (1977 Session Law Chapter 154 Section 6). Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 94 L.Ed. 2d 267, 108 S.Ct. 1098 (1987), suggests that Idaho is among 48 states which no longer place such a burden on the defendant, although they would be constitutionally permitted to do so.