N.C.P.I.—Crim. 208.05

The defendant has been charged with malicious castration.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must

prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant [cut off] [maimed] [disfigured] a privy

member of the victim, thereby permanently injuring him. (Name privy

member) is a privy member.

Second, that the defendant acted unlawfully and with the intent1 to

[murder] [maim] [disfigure] [disable] [render impotent] the victim.

And Third, that he acted with malice aforethought. Malice means

not only hatred, ill will, or spite as it is ordinarily understood-to be sure,

that is malice-but it also means the condition of mind which prompts a

person to intentionally inflict serious bodily harm which proximately

results in injury without just cause, excuse, or justification. You may

consider this along with all other facts and circumstances in determining

whether the castration was unlawful and whether it was done with

malice. Aforethought means that he formed the intent to (castrate)

before doing it.

NOTE WELL: If self-defense is an issue, use N.C.P.I.-

Crim. 308.40 or 308.45, as appropriate.

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or

about the alleged date, the defendant with malice aforethought,

unlawfully and with the intent to [murder] [maim] [disfigure] [disable]

[render impotent] the victim [cut off] [maimed] [disfigured] the victim's

(name privy member), thereby permanently injuring him, it would be your

duty to return a verdict of guilty of malicious castration. If you do not so

find or have a

reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you will not return a

verdict of guilty of malicious castration,2 but must determine whether he

is guilty of castration without malice aforethought. Castration without

malice aforethought differs from malicious castration in that the State

need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with

malice aforethought.

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or

about the alleged date, the defendant unlawfully with the intent to [kill]

[maim] [disfigure] [disable] [render impotent] the victim [cut off]

[maimed] [disfigured] the victim's (name privy member), thereby

permanently injuring him, it would be your duty to return a verdict of

guilty. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or

more of these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not

guilty.

NOTE WELL: If self-defense is an issue, use N.C.P.I.-

Crim. 308.40 or 308.45, as appropriate.