WI · jury_instructions
Wis JI-Criminal 1014
First Degree Intentional Homicide: Self-defense: Second Degree Intentional Homicide
The defendant in this case is charged with first degree intentional homicide, and you
must first consider whether the defendant is guilty of that offense. If you are not satisfied
that the defendant is guilty of first degree intentional homicide, you must consider whether
or not the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide which is a less serious
degree of criminal homicide.
Intentional Homicide
The crimes referred to as first and second degree intentional homicide are different
degrees of homicide. Homicide is the taking of the life of another human being. The
degree of homicide defined by the law depends on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case.
While the law separates intentional homicides into two degrees, there are certain
elements which are common to each crime. Both first and second degree intentional
homicide require that the defendant caused the death of the victim with the intent to kill.
It will also be important for you to consider the privilege of self defense in deciding which
crime, if any, the defendant has committed.
Self-Defense
The Criminal Code of Wisconsin provides that a person is privileged to intentionally
use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what (he) (she)
reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person by the other
person. However, (he) (she) may intentionally use only such force as (he) (she) reasonably
believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. (He) (She) may not
intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death unless (he) (she)
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm to (himself) (herself).2
As applied to this case, the effect of the law of self defense is:
• The defendant is not guilty of either first or second degree intentional homicide
if the defendant reasonably believed that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating
an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person, and reasonably believed the force
used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself)
(herself).3
• The defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide if the defendant
caused the death of (name of victim) with the intent to kill and actually believed
the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to
(himself) (herself), but the belief or the amount of force used was unreasonable.4
• The defendant is guilty of first degree intentional homicide if the defendant
caused the death of (name of victim) with the intent to kill and did not actually
believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm to (himself) (herself).5
Because the law provides that it is the State’s burden to prove all the facts necessary
to constitute a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you will not be asked to make a separate
finding on whether the defendant acted in self defense. Instead, you will be asked to
determine whether the State has established the necessary facts to justify a finding of guilty
for first or second degree intentional homicide. If the State does not satisfy you that those
facts are established by the evidence, you will be instructed to find the defendant not guilty.
The elements of each crime will now be defined for you in greater detail.
Statutory Definition of First Degree Intentional Homicide
First degree intentional homicide, as defined in § 940.01 of the Criminal Code of
Wisconsin, is committed by one who causes the death of another human being with the
intent to kill that person or another. In this case, first degree intentional homicide also
requires that the defendant did not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.6
State’s Burden of Proof
Before you may find the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide, the State
must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following
three elements were present.
Elements of First Degree Intentional Homicide That the State Must Prove
1. The defendant caused the death of (name of victim).
“Cause” means that the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in producing
the death.7
2. The defendant acted with the intent to kill ( (name of victim) ) (another human
being).8
3. The defendant did not actually believe that the force used was necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.9
Meaning of “Intent to Kill”
“Intent to kill” means that the defendant had the mental purpose to take the life of
another human being or was aware that (his) (her) conduct was practically certain to cause
the death of another human being.10
When May Intent Exist?
While the law requires that the defendant acted with intent to kill, it does not require
that the intent exist for any particular length of time before the act is committed. The act
need not be brooded over, considered, or reflected upon for a week, a day, an hour, or even
for a minute. There need not be any appreciable time between the formation of the intent
and the act. The intent to kill may be formed at any time before the act, including the
instant before the act, and must continue to exist at the time of the act.
Deciding About Intent
You cannot look into a person’s mind to find intent. Intent to kill must be found, if
found at all, from the defendant’s acts, words, and statements, if any, and from all the facts
and circumstances in this case bearing upon intent.11
Intent and Motive
Intent should not be confused with motive. While proof of intent is necessary to a
conviction, proof of motive is not. “Motive” refers to a person’s reason for doing
something. While motive may be shown as a circumstance to aid in establishing the guilt
of a defendant, the State is not required to prove motive on the part of a defendant in order
to convict. Evidence of motive does not by itself establish guilt. You should give it the
weight you believe it deserves under all of the circumstances.
Actual Belief That The Force Used Was Necessary
The third element of first degree intentional homicide requires that the defendant did
not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm to (himself) (herself). This requires the State to prove12 either:
1) that the defendant did not actually believe (he) (she) was in imminent danger of
death or great bodily harm; or
2) that the defendant did not actually believe the force used was necessary to prevent
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).
When first degree intentional homicide is considered, the reasonableness of the
defendant’s belief is not an issue. You are to be concerned only with what the defendant
actually believed. Whether these beliefs are reasonable is important only if you later
consider whether the defendant is guilty of second degree intentional homicide.13
Jury's Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of
(name of victim) with the intent to kill and that the defendant did not actually believe that
the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself)
(herself), you should find the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide.
If you are not so satisfied, you must not find the defendant guilty of first degree
intentional homicide, and you must consider whether the defendant is guilty of second
degree intentional homicide, as defined in § 940.05 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin,
which is a lesser included offense of first degree intentional homicide.
Make Every Reasonable Effort To Agree
You should make every reasonable effort to agree unanimously on the charge of first
degree intentional homicide before considering the offense of second degree intentional
homicide.14 However, if after full and complete consideration of the evidence, you
conclude that further deliberation would not result in unanimous agreement on the charge
of first degree intentional homicide, you should consider whether the defendant is guilty of
second degree intentional homicide.
Second Degree Intentional Homicide
Before you may find the defendant guilty of second degree intentional homicide, the
State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the
following three elements were present.
Elements of Second Degree Intentional Homicide That the State Must Prove
1. The defendant caused the death of (name of victim).
2. The defendant acted with the intent to kill ((name of victim)) (another human
being).
3. The defendant did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was preventing or
terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person or did not reasonably
believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm to (himself) (herself).15
You have already been instructed on the definitions of “causing death” and “with intent
to kill.” The same definitions apply to your consideration of second degree intentional
homicide.
Reasonable Belief That The Force Used Was Necessary
The third element of second degree intentional homicide requires that the defendant
did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful
interference with (his) (her) person or did not reasonably believe the force used was
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself). This
requires that the State prove any one of the following:16
1) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant would not have
believed that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with
(his) (her) person; or
2) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant would not have
believed (he) (she) was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm; or
3) that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant would not have
believed that the amount of force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or
great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).
Determining Whether Beliefs Were Reasonable
A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken.17 In determining whether the
defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence
and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that
existed at the time of the alleged offense.18 The reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs
must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant’s acts
and not from the viewpoint of the jury now.
Jury’s Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of
(name of victim) with the intent to kill and did not reasonably believe that (he) (she) was
preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person or did not
reasonably believe the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm to (himself) (herself), you should find the defendant guilty of second degree
intentional homicide.
If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of second
degree intentional homicide, you must find the defendant not guilty.
You are not, in any event, to find the defendant guilty of more than one of the foregoing
offenses.
History
Wis JI-Criminal 1014 (2021). Release No. 59. Wisconsin Court System, 2021. Prepared by the Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.
Provenance
- Source
- wilawlibrary.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
61162a433fdc7c1c563d641079ff13ee760e895bbadd4ad70db22b690f2f0008
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.