ID · jury_instructions
IDJI 1.41.3
Charging instructions on defense claims - special interrogatories
On the defendant[s] claim of __________ against __________, the defendant[s] [has/have] the burden of proof on each of the following propositions:
1. [Proposition No. 1.]
2. [Proposition No. 2.]
3. [Etc.]
You will be asked the following question on the jury verdict form:
[Insert question exactly as it appears on the verdict]
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then you should answer this question "yes." If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then you should answer this question "no."
Comment:
The committee recommends that when there are affirmative defenses or counterclaims, and in any case involving multiple claims, cross claims or third party claims, verdicts on special interrogatories be used. Then, each party’s claim, counterclaim or cross claim can be isolated into a charging instruction which defines that claim, and sets forth the elements necessary to answer the special interrogatory.
Provenance
- Source
- isc.idaho.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-21
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
c790e25882307e7117a23b887579579e83c179dcf5ab288202617a86b7c564ea
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.