N.C.P.I.—Civil 805.64A

NOTE WELL: Use for claims arising on or after 1

October 2011.

The (state number) issue reads:

“Did the defendant use reasonable force to repel the plaintiff who

entered the defendant’s [land] [building] with the intent to commit a

crime?”

You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state

number) issue “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.1

On this issue the burden of proof is on the defendant.2 This means

that the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence,

two things:3

First, that the plaintiff entered the [land] [building] of the

defendant with the intent to commit a crime.4 Intent is a mental attitude

seldom provable by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by

circumstances from which it may be inferred. You arrive at the intent of a

person by such just and reasonable deductions from the circumstances

proven as a reasonably prudent person would ordinarily draw therefrom.5

The defendant contends and the plaintiff denies that the plaintiff

intended to commit the crime of (name crime and describe its elements).

And Second, that the defendant used no more force against the

plaintiff than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to repel

the plaintiff from his [land] [building].6

Finally, as to this issue on which the defendant has the burden of

proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the

defendant used reasonable force to repel the plaintiff who entered the

defendant’s [land] [building] with the intent to commit a crime, then it

would be your duty to answer this issue “Yes” in favor of the defendant.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty

to answer this issue “No” in favor of the plaintiff.