3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 8.04

(Name) has raised as a defense that (he) (she) was justified [by necessity] in

committing the offense(s) charged in Count(s) (Nos.) of the indictment. If you find

that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (name) committed the

offense(s) charged, then you must consider whether (name’s) actions were justified

[by necessity], as I will define that for you. If you find that the government proved

that (name) committed the offense(s) charged and you also find that the (name)

proved that (he) (she) was justified [by necessity] in committing the offense(s), then

you must find (name) not guilty of the charge(s).

To find that (name’s) actions were justified [by necessity], and therefore that

(he) (she) is not guilty of the offense(s) charged in Count(s) (Nos.) of the indictment,

you must find that (name) proved by a preponderance of the evidence each of the

following four elements:

First, that (name) was under an immediate, unlawful threat of death or

serious bodily injury to (himself) (herself) or to others;

Second, that (name) had a well-grounded [reasonable] fear [belief] that the

threat would be carried out if (he) (she) did not commit the offense(s)

[criminal acts];

Third, that (name’s) criminal action was directly caused by the need to avoid

the threatened harm and that (name) had no reasonable, lawful opportunity to

avoid the threatened harm without committing the offense(s) [criminal acts];

17

that is, that (name) had no reasonable lawful opportunity both to refuse to do

the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm; and

Fourth, that (name) had not recklessly placed (himself) (herself) in a situation

in which (he) (she) would be forced [it was probable that (he) (she) would be put

in a position of having to choose whether] to engage in criminal conduct.

(Name) has the burden of proving the defense of justification [necessity] by a

preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is a lower standard

than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something by a preponderance of

the evidence means to prove that it is more likely true than not true. If you put the

credible evidence that is favorable to (name) and the credible evidence that is

favorable to the government on opposite sides of a scale, the scale would have to tip

somewhat on (name’s) side in order for you to find (name) not guilty because of

justification [necessity]. However, if the scale tips in favor of the government, or if

the credible evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say on which

side the credible evidence is heavier, then you must decide that (name) has not

proved the defense of justification [necessity] by a preponderance of the evidence.

In making this determination, you should consider all of the evidence presented

during the trial, regardless of who offered it. You should evaluate the evidence and

its credibility according to the instructions I gave you earlier.

18

You should also remember that the fact that (name) asserts this defense does

not relieve the government of the burden of proving all the elements of the offense(s)

charged beyond a reasonable doubt.