Criminal Jury Instructions
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTION
I will now explain the law which you must apply in deciding this case. You must follow this explanation. You must decide the facts from the testimony and other evidence and apply the law to those facts in reaching your verdict. Do not single out any of these explanations and disregard others. The order of the explanations does not indicate that one explanation is more important than another.
If I have given you the impression that I have an opinion regarding any fact in this case, you are to disregard that impression. If I have given the impression that I have an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of (defendant’s name), you are to disregard that impression. You are not to be influenced by sympathy, emotion, prejudice, or public opinion. You must decide this case only on the evidence or the lack of evidence. The bill of information (or indictment) is not evidence. It is nothing more than a written, formal accusation against (defendant’s name) charging him with a crime. Statements and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence. You must determine the facts only from the evidence presented. The evidence which you should consider consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits such as writings and physical objects which I have permitted the parties to introduce. Do not consider any evidence which was not admitted, or which you were instructed to disregard, or to which an objection was sustained. As jurors you alone shall determine the value and believability of the evidence. You should study carefully the testimony given and the circumstances under which the witness has testified. You may consider these things:
1) the witness’s manner while testifying;
2) any reason the witness may have for testifying in favor of or against the state or (defendant’s name);
3) the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence; and
4) the witness’s ability and opportunity to observe and remember the things that he (or she) testified about;
5) whether he made a prior statement inconsistent with his testimony;
6) whether he has been convicted of a felony.
[You should judge (defendant’s name)’s testimony the same way you judge the testimony of any other witness].
In deciding the case you must remember that (defendant’s name) is presumed to be innocent until each part of the charge necessary to establish his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (defendant’s name) is not required to prove that he is innocent. In considering the evidence, you must give (defendant’s name) the benefit of every reasonable doubt which you may find in the evidence or from the lack of evidence. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty, you must find him not guilty. The state has accused (defendant’s name) of (the crime or crimes charged).
(Define the crimes charged & responsive verdicts)
When you enter the jury room, it is your duty to listen to one another, to consider each other’s views, and to discuss the evidence with the purpose of reaching a just verdict, if you can do so without giving up to your individual judgment.
You are not advocates for one side or the other. Do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and to change your opinion, if you are convinced you are wrong. But do not surrender your honest belief as to the value and effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. When you leave to decide the case, you must first elect a foreperson, who will preside over your discussions. When you reach a verdict, the foreperson must write the verdict on the back of the list of responsive verdicts.
(Review Verdict Form)
He or she must sign the verdict and deliver it to me in open court. Ten of you must agree to reach a verdict on each charge. You must consider each charge separately. When you have reached your verdict on both charges, simply knock on the door and advise the deputy sheriff. The court will reconvene to receive it. Court will recess until you reach a verdict.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with being an accessory after the fact to (name of felony).
[Define the felony.]
To convict (Defendant’s name) of being an accessory after the fact, you must find that:
1) (Perpertrator’s name) committed (name of felony); and
2) (Defendant’s name) knew or had reasonable ground to believe that (perpetrator’s name) committed (name of felony); and
3) (Defendant’s name) [harbored, aided or concealed](Perpertrator’s name); and
4) (Defendant’s name) actively desired for (Perpertrator’s name) to avoid or escape from [arrest, trial, conviction or punishment].
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of accessory after the fact, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted accessory after the fact. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted accessory after the fact, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit the crime of accessory after the fact; and did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing accessory after the fact.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted accessory after the fact, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
Accomplice’s Testimony
If someone is involved with another person in committing a crime, he can testify at that person’s trial. Evidence supporting this testimony is desirable, but not always necessary. You can convict (defendant’s name) on this kind of testimony by itself, but you should consider it very carefully and convict him only if you are satisfied that the testimony is true and reliable. By supporting evidence I mean some real and independent evidence of a material fact connecting (defendant’s name) with committing the crime charged. Supporting evidence that merely raises a suspicion of guilt, because the accused had an opportunity to commit the crime, is not enough.
AGGRESSOR DOCTRINE
A person who is who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a way that his adversary knows or should know that he wants to withdraw and stop the conflict.
ANYTHING OF VALUE
The phrase “anything of value” must be given the broadest possible meaning, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
[In cases involving theft by shoplifting, the term "value" is the actual retail price of the property at the time of the offense.]
[The phrase "anything of value" also includes transportation, telephone, and telegraph services, or any other services available for hire.]
AGGRAVATED ARSON
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated arson of (describe object). To convict (Defendant’s name) of aggravated arson, you must find that:
1) he set fire to [or intentionally damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object); and
2) it was foreseeable that this action might endanger human life.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of aggravated arson, you must consider whether he is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of $500 or more. To convict (defendant’s name) of simple arson causing damage of $500 or more, you must find that:
1) he intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent; and
2) the damage done by the fire [or explosive substance] amounted to $500 or more.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of $500 or more, you must consider whether he is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500. In order to convict the defendant of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find him not guilty.
ARSON WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD
(Defendant’s name) is charged with Arson with Intent to Defraud by setting fire to [or damaging by explosive substance] (designate the property) with the intent to defraud (name the person or corporation, if alleged).
To convict (Defendant’s name), you must find that:
1) he set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (property); and
2) he actively desired to defraud (name the person or corporation, if alleged).
SIMPLE ARSON
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple arson by setting fire to [or intentionally damaging by explosive substance] (describe object) causing damage of $500 or more without the consent of the owner. In order to convict the defendant of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) the defendant intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent; and
2) damage done by the fire [or explosive substance] amounted to $500 or more.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of $500 or more, you must consider whether he is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500. In order to convict the defendant of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find him not guilty.
SECOND DEGREE BATTERY
(Defendant’s name) is accused of the second degree battery of (victim’s name). To convict (Defendant’s name) of second degree battery, you must find that he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim’s name) without his/her consent, inflicting bodily injury, involving unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death.
If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of second degree battery, you must decide if the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of simple battery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of simple battery, you must find that he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim’s name) without her consent.
If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of simple battery, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
AGGRAVATED BATTERY–FORCE OR VIOLENCE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with committing an aggravated battery upon (victim’s name) with a (describe the instrumentality alleged to be a dangerous weapon).
Aggravated battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon a person with a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrument which, in the way used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
To convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated battery, you must find that:
1) he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim); and
2) the force or violence was inflicted with (describe the dangerous weapon); and
3) (describe the instrumentality) was an instrument used in a way likely or calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.
AGGRAVATED BATTERY–POISON OR NOXIOUS LIQUID
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated battery upon (victim’s name) by giving him poison or a noxious liquid. In order to convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated battery, you must find that:
1) he intentionally administered (substance’s name) to (victim’s name); and
2) the (substance’s name) was a poison or noxious substance used in a way likely or calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.
MANUFACTURE AND POSSESSION OF A BOMB
(Defendant’s name) is charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing a bomb [having a bomb under his control] [manufacturing a bomb]. A bomb is an explosive compound or mixture with a detonator or initiator, or both. [The term bomb does not include small arms ammunition.] [The term bomb does not include fireworks which are possessed in conformity with law.]
[Explosives include gunpowders, powders used for blasting, all forms of high explosives, blasting materials, fuses (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents, smokeless powders, and any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion or by detonation of the compound, mixture or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.]
To convict (defendant’s name) of possession [manufacture] of a bomb, you must find that:
1) the defendant knowingly and intentionally [possessed] [controlled] [manufactured] a bomb; and
2) the defendant had no license authorizing his [control] [possession] [manufacture] of the bomb.
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A JUVENILE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with carnal knowledge of (juvenile’s name), who is claimed to be an unmarried female under the age of 17 and more than two years younger than (defendant’s name).
In order to convict (defendant’s name) of carnal knowledge of a juvenile, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) and (juvenile’s name) had vaginal (anal or oral) sexual intercourse with her consent; and
2) (defendant’s name) was at least seventeen years old at the time; and
3) (Juvenile’s name) was at least twelve years old but less than seventeen years old at the time; and
4) (defendant’s name) is more than two years older than (juvenile’s name); and
5) (Juvenile’s name) was not married at the time.
CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT
If you find that (defendant’s name) offered evidence of his good character, you must consider it with all the other evidence, and give it appropriate consideration. You may think it improbable that a person of good character would commit such (an) offense(s). However, if you find that the state has proven (defendant’s name)’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty to find him guilty even though there may be evidence of good character.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Here’s an example to help you understand the difference. If your yard, your driveway and the streets were dry when you went to bed last night and they were all wet when you woke up this morning, that is circumstantial evidence that it rained last night. Now, if your neighbor came home late last night and, he felt and saw raindrops falling, that is direct evidence that it rained last night. In deciding the case you must presume that the defendant is innocent until each part of the charge necessary to establish his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove that he is innocent. In considering the evidence, you must give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt that you may find in the evidence or from the lack of evidence. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must find him not guilty. Now, if you find that this case involves only circumstantial evidence, you cannot find the defendant guilty unless the facts proved by the evidence exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.
CONFESSION
The state has offered a statement alleged to be made by (defendant’s name). You must determine:
1) did (defendant’s name) make the statement;
2) was the statement accurately repeated.
If you determine that (Defendant’s name) made a statement, you must decide the value and believability that you should give it. In making that decision, you should consider all the circumstances surrounding the statement. You should consider whether (defendant’s name) made the statement freely and voluntarily, without the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, inducement, or promises.
CONSPIRACY
The defendant is charged with conspiring with (Co-conspirator’s name) for the specific purpose of committing (name of crime). [Define the crime.]
To convict (defendant’s name) of conspiracy to commit (name of the crime) you must find that:
1) he entered into an agreement or combination with (name of co-conspirator); and
2) the specific purpose of the agreement or combination was to commit (name of crime); and
3) one of the conspirators did something toward accomplishing the object of the agreement or combination.
CONTRIBUTING TO DELINQUENCY OF JUVENILES–SEXUALLY IMMORAL ACT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with contributing to the delinquency of (juvenile’s name) by intentional enticing, aiding or permitting, a child under the age of seventeen to perform any sexually immoral act.
To convict (defendant’s name) of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, you must find that:
1) He intentionally enticed, aided, or permitted (juvenile’s name) to perform a sexually immoral act; and
2) (Juvenile’s name) was under the age of seventeen at the time of the act; and
3) (defendant’s name) was over seventeen at the time of the act.
Lack of knowledge of the child’s age is not a defense.
AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated criminal damage to (describe property) belonging to (victim’s name) [and causing damage amounting to ____________________________dollars.]
To convict (Defendant’s Name) of aggravated criminal damage to property, you must find that
1) he intentionally damaged (describe property);
2) it was foreseeable that (a) human being(s) might have his life [their lives] endangered; and
3) the damage was caused by [means other than fire or explosion]
Foreseeable refers to that which ordinarily would be anticipated by a human being of average reasonable intelligence and perception.
SIMPLE CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with criminal damage to (describe the property) in the amount of _____ dollars without the owner’s consent. To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he intentionally damaged (describe the property); and
2) (name of owner), the owner of the property, did not consent to the damage; and
3) the damage was caused by [describe the means other than fire or explosion]; and
4) the damage amounted to __________________ dollars.
SIMPLE CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with criminal damage to (describe the property) in the amount of _____ dollars without the owner’s consent. To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he intentionally damaged (describe the property); and
2) (name of owner), the owner of the property, did not consent to the damage; and
3) the damage was caused by [describe the means other than fire or explosion]; and
4) the damage amounted to __________________ dollars.
CRIMINAL INTENT
Criminal intent may be specific or general. Specific criminal intent exists when the circumstances indicate that (defendant’s name) actively desired a particular illegal result to follow his act or failure to act. General criminal intent is present when the circumstances indicate that (defendant>s name) considered that the particular illegal result was reasonably certain to follow his act or failure to act. General criminal intent is always present when there is specific intent. Whether criminal intent is present must be determined in light of ordinary experience. Intent is a question of fact which may be inferred from the circumstances. You may [presume] [infer] that (defendant’s name) intended the natural and probable consequences of his acts.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Criminal negligence exists when there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender’s conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful person under similar circumstances. The mere failure of a person to act reasonably does not constitute criminal negligence.
CRUELTY TO JUVENILES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with cruelty to a juvenile.
To convict (defendant’s name) of cruelty to juveniles, you must find that:
1) he mistreated [neglected] (juvenile’s name) intentionally or with such disregard for (juvenile’s name)’s interests that he grossly deviatedbelow the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances; and
2) (Juvenile’s name) was under seventeen; and
3) (defendant’s name)’s mistreatment [or neglect] caused (juvenile’s name) unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(Defendant’s name)’s lack of knowledge of the child’s age is not a defense
CUSTODY
Custody requires an actual restraint of the suspect, which may be imposed by force or may result from the suspect’s submission to the custody of the one arresting him. Whether (Defendant’s name) was in custody is a fact that you must decide from the totality of the circumstances. Factors to be considered include time, place, the law enforcement officer’s intent, (defendant’s name)’s belief, and the existence of a warrant. The subjective intent of the law enforcement officer, if disclosed to (defendant’s name), is relevant, but only to the extent it would affect how a reasonable person would gauge the breadth of his freedom of action. (Defendant’s name)’s belief must be determined objectively, in retrospect, from the totality of the circumstances. Restraint may be imposed by an officer’s words, his actions, or both, even though the magic word Arrest is not spoken.
ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities. To convict (defendant’s name) of illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities, you must find that:
1) he (describe the throwing, placing, or other use of the article, substance, or liquid); and
2) he acted intentionally or in such disregard of other’s interests that it amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances;
3) it was foreseeable that the act might result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.
ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities. To convict (defendant’s name) of illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities, you must find that:
1) he (describe the throwing, placing, or other use of the article, substance, or liquid); and
2) he acted intentionally or in such disregard of other’s interests that it amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances;
3) it was foreseeable that the act might result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.
DANGEROUS WEAPON
“Dangerous weapon” includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrument, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR TESTIFY
(Defendant’s name) is not required to call any witnesses or to produce any evidence. He is not required to testify. You may not presume guilt nor infer anything, from the fact that (defendant’s name) did not testify.
DEFENSE OF OTHERS–HOMICIDE AND OTHER CASES
(Defendant’s name) claims that he used force [killed] to defend (other person).
If you find that:
1) (defendant’s name) committed (offense charged) while defending (other person); and
2) it reasonably appeared to (defendant’s name) that (other person) justifiably could have done the same thing; and
3) (defendant’s name) reasonably believed that his action was necessary to protect (other person);
then you must find him not guilty.
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY–OTHER THAN HOMICIDE CASES
The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession, if the force or violence used is reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent the offense or trespass.
If you find that:
1) (the defendant’s name) committed the offense charged for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense or trespass against property; and
2) the property was in [defendant's name]’s lawful possession [of another]; and
3) the force or violence used by (defendant’s name) was apparently necessary to prevent the forcible offense or trespass against property; and
4) (defendant’s name) used reasonable force or violence to prevent the forcible offense or trespass;
you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
DISTRIBUTION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with distributing (name the controlled dangerous substance). Distribution is the transfer of possession. Possession can be actual or constructive. A person who has control of a thing constructively possesses it.
To convict (defendant’s name) of distributing (name drug), you must find that:
1) he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name drug); and
2) he knowingly or intentionally transferred possession of the (name drug) to another person.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of distributing (name drug), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempting to distribute (name drug).
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted distributing (name drug), you must find that:
1) he actively desired to distribute (name drug); and
2) he did (or omitted) something for the purpose of and tending directly toward distributing (name drug).
It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, (Defendant’s name) would have actually distributed the (name drug). Mere preparation to distribute (name drug) is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to distribute (name drug), you must consider whether he is guilty of possessing (name drug). To convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing (name drug), you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name drug).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possession of (name drug), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted possession of (name drug). To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempting to possess (name drug), you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess (name drug);
2) he did (or omitted) something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (name drug).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted possession of (name drug), you must find him not guilty.
PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF CDS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with production [or manufacture] of (name CDS). It is unlawful for any person knowingly [or intentionally] to produce [or manufacture] (name the controlled dangerous substance). To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that he knowingly [or intentionally] produced [or manufactured] (name CDS).
[Production or manufacture includes planting, cultivation, growing, harvesting, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing, either directly or indirectly, by extraction of substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.-include pertinent synonyms).
FRAUD IN OBTAINING CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with fraud in obtaining controlled dangerous substances. To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he knowingly [or intentionally] acquired (name the controlled dangerous substance); and
2) he acquired it by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or trickery [by (describe the manner by which the misrepresentation, etc. was practiced if alleged)].
POSSESSION OF CDS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE
The state has accused (Defendant’s name) of knowingly or intentionally possessing (name of drug) with intent to distribute. Possession can be actual or constructive. A person who has control of a thing constructively possesses it. Mere presence in an area where drugs are found is not sufficient to constitute possession. Distribution is the transfer of possession. In determining whether (Defendant’s name) intended to distribute cocaine by may consider whether:
1) he ever distributed or attempted to distributed cocaine;
2) the cocaine is in a form usually associated with distribution;
3) the amount of cocaine creates an inference of intent to distribute because the amount is inconsistent with personal use only;
4) testimony establishes that the amount of cocaine is inconsistent with personal use only;
5) he possessed paraphernalia evidencing an intent to distribute;
In order to convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, you must find that:
1) he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine; and
2) he intended to transfer possession of the cocaine.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess cocaine; and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing cocaine; and
3) he intended to transfer possession of the cocaine..
It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, (Defendant’s name) would have actually committed the crime. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, you must consider whether he is guilty of possession of cocaine.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of possession of cocaine, you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing cocaine, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted possession of cocaine. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempting to possess cocaine, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess cocaine;
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing cocaine.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to possess cocaine, you must find him not guilty.
POSSESSION OF CDS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with possession of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of possession of (name CDS), you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name CDS).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possession of (name CDS), you must consider whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable that he is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS). To convict Mr. Folse of attempted possession of controlled dangerous substances, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess (name CDS); and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (name CDS).
Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS), you must find him not guilty.
POSSESSION OF ??? GRAMS OF CDS
The state has accused (Defendant’s name) of knowingly or intentionally possessing (quanity) grams or more of (name CDS). Possession can be actual or constructive. A person who has control of a thing constructively possesses it. Distribution is the transfer of possession.
In order to convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS), you must find that:
1) he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name CDS); and
2) the (name CDS) mixture weighs (quantity) grams or more.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempting to possess (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted possession of (name CDS) with intent to distribute, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) actively desired to possess (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS); and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS).
Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to possess (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS), you must consider whether he is guilty of possession of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of possession of (name CDS), having previously been convicted of possessing (name CDS) you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name CDS).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possession of (name CDS), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempting to possess (name CDS), you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess (name CDS);
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (name CDS).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS), you must find him not guilty.
MULTIPLE OFFENSE DWI
The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages [narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbituates] after having been previously convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated [two] [three] times. To find (defendant=s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he was operating a motor vehicle; and
2) while operating the motor vehicle, he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage(s) [narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbituates]; and
3) he was previously convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated on the following occasions: [describe the convictions alleged in the indictment].
ENTRAPMENT
(Defendant’s name) asserts that he was entrapped. Entrapment occurs when an agent, cooperating with police for the purpose obtaining evidence, originates the idea of a crime and induces another person to commit the crime, when that person is not otherwise disposed to do so. The important question is whether or not (defendant’s name) was predisposed to commit the crime. If (defendant’s name) proves more likely than not that he was entrapped, you must find him not guilty.
AGGRAVATED ESCAPE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated escape by escaping from the lawful custody of (name the officer and describe his official status) [by escaping from (describe the place of lawful confinement)] under circumstances endangering human life.
In order to convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated escape, you must find that:
1) He intentionally left the legal custody of (name and status of officer) [or from (describe the place of confinement) where he was lawfully confined]; and
2) he left under circumstances which endangered human life.
ASSISTING ESCAPE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with assisting the escape of (name the prisoner). To convict (defendant’s name) of assisting escape, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) actively assisted (name the prisoner); and
2) (name the prisoner) was in the lawful custody of (name the officer, agency, or institution with legal custody of prisoner) at the time ; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to aid (name the prisoner) in escaping from lawful custody.
ASSISTING ESCAPE–ASSISTING ESCAPE BY PUBLIC OFFICER
(Defendant’s name), (describe his public office), is accused of assisting the escape of (name the prisoner).
To convict (defendant’s name) of assisting escape, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) was a public officer [serving as (describe defendant's public office)]; and
2) (defendant’s name) actively helped (name the prisoner) escape [permitted (name the prisoner) to escape by intentionally failing to act]; and
3) (name the prisoner) was a prisoner in his custody.
SIMPLE ESCAPE–INTENTIONAL DEPARTURE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple escape by escaping from the lawful custody of (name the officer and describe his official status) [by escaping from (describe the place of confinement) where he was in lawful custody]. To convict (defendant’s name) of simple escape, you must find that:
1) he intentionally left (name the officer and give his official status or describe the place of confinement); and
2) he was lawfully [imprisoned in] [committed to] [detained in] (describe the place of confinement) [or in the lawful custody of (name the officer and give his official status)] when he left.
SIMPLE ESCAPE–FAILURE TO RETURN FROM FURLOUGH
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple escape failing to return from a furlough to (state the place of official confinement to which the defendant was supposed to return) at the appointed time, (state the time and date if alleged). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple escape, you must find that:
1) he was granted a furlough from (state the place of confinement); and
2) he failed to return at the appointed time, (state the date and time if alleged); and
3) the furlough was granted by the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
SIMPLE ESCAPE–FAILURE TO RETURN FROM WORK-RELEASE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple escape by failing to report or return at the appointed time (state the date and time if alleged) from (describe the place of planned employment or other activity). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple escape, you must find that:
1) he was serving a sentence; and
2) he was participating in a work-release program; and
3) he failed to report to [or return from] (describe the place of planned employment or other activity) as set up by the work-release program when he was supposed to. (state the date and time if alleged).
EXTORTION
(Defendant’s name) is charged with extortion.
To convict the defendant of extortion, you must find that:
1) he communicated a threat (describe the threat if alleged) to (name); and
2) he actively desired to obtain something of value [or any acquittance, advantage, or immunity of any description] (describe if alleged).
Something of value must be given the broadest possible construction, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
The following type(s) of threat(s) is (are) enough:
[(1) A threat to cause any unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of any member of his family or of any other person held dear to him;]
[(2) A threat to accuse the individual threatened or any member of his family or any other person held dear to him of a crime;]
[(3) A threat to expose or impute any deformity or disgrace to the individual threatened or to any member of his family or to any other person held dear to him;]
[(4) A threat to expose any secret affecting the individual threatened or any member of his family or any other person held dear to him;]
[(5) A threat to do any harm.]
POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
(Defendant’s name) is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. To convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1) (Defendant’s name) was convicted of (felony conviction);
2) He possessed a firearm within ten years following the completion of his sentence, probation, parole or suspension of sentence.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, you must consider whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable that he attempted to possess a firearm as a convicted felon. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted possession as a convicted felon, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) actively desired to possess a firearm; and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing a firearm within ten years following the completion of his sentence, probation, parole or suspension of sentence; and
3) he was convicted of (felony conviction).
FLIGHT
If you find that (Defendant’s name) fled, hid or tried to avoid apprehension after a crime was committed, you may consider it with all the other evidence. Flight, hiding or trying to avoid apprehension is not sufficient to prove that he is guilty. You must decide whether his action was due to consciousness of guilt or to other reasons unrelated to guilt.
FORESEEABLE
“Foreseeable” refers to something which a person of average reasonable intelligence and perception ordinarily would anticipate.
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the killing of (victim) by criminal negligence. To convict (defendant’s name), you must find:
1) he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he acted with such disregard of the interest of others that his conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful person under similar circumstances.
IGNORANCE OF LAW
Ignorance of criminal laws is not a defense.
IMPEACHMENT–PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT
The testimony of a witness may be discredited by a showing that the witness made a prior statement which is inconsistent with his present testimony. The prior statements are admitted only to try to discredit the witness–not to show that the statements are true.
INDECENT BEHAVIOR WITH A JUVENILE
The state has accused (defendant’s name) of indecent behavior with juvenile (name). To convict (defendant’s name), you must find that:
1) he performed a lewd or indecent act upon (or in the presence of) a (juvenile’s name) ; and
2) (juvenile’s name) is under seventeen years old; and
3) (juvenile’s name) is more than two years younger than (defendant’s name0; and
4) (defendant’s name) acted while actively desiring to arouse or gratify his own or (juvenile’s name) sexual desires.
Lack of knowledge of (victim’s name) age is not a defense.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of indecent behavior of a juvenile, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted indecent behavior of a juvenile.
To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted indecent behavior of a juvenile, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to perform a lewd or indecent act upon (or in the presence of) (juvenile’s name); and
2) (juvenile’s name) is under seventeen years old; and
3) (juvenile’s name) is more than two years younger than (defendant’s name); and
4) (defendant’s name) actively desired to arouse or gratify his own or (juvenile’s name) sexual desires; and
5) (defendant’s name) did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward performing a lewd or indecent act upon (or in the presence of) (juvenile’s name).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted indecent behavior of a juvenile, you must find him not guilty.
INSANITY
(Defendant’s name) entered a plea of “not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.” So, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) did in fact commit a crime I described, you must decide whether he was insane when the offense was committed. (Defendant’s name) must prove more probably than not that he was insane when he committed the crime. To decide whether (Defendant’s name) was insane, you must consider all of the evidence bearing on his mental condition, including the testimony of experts and of other witnesses, and his conduct and actions. So, if you find that:
1) the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) did in fact commit a crime I described; and
2) (Defendant’s name) proved more probably than not that he suffered from a mental disease or defect; and
3) (Defendant’s name) proved more probably than not that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong concerning his conduct at the time of the offense; then your verdict must be “not guilty by reason of insanity”.
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
The fact that a person was intoxicated [drugged] at the time of the commission of a crime is usually no defense. However, if circumstances indicate that (Defendant’s name)’s intoxicated [drugged] condition was produced involuntarily, and the circumstances indicate that the condition directly caused of the commission of a crime, he is not guilty.
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
The fact that a person was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the crime is usually no defense. However, if the circumstances indicate that (defendant’s name) voluntarily became intoxicated and that his intoxicated condition prevented him from actively desiring to commit (name crime requiring specific intent), you must find him not guilty.
ISSUING WORTHLESS CHECKS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with issuing worthless checks in the amount of $_______. To convict (defendant’s name) of issuing worthless check(s) in the amount of $_________, you must find that:
1) he issued (describe the check, draft or order for payment of money) in the amount of $_______ in exchange for something of value [payment on an installment contract or open account]; and
2) he knew at the time he issued the check [draft or order] that he didn’t have enough credit with (name the bank depository on which the instrument is drawn) to pay it in full when it was presented; and
3) he actively desired to defraud.
“Something of value” includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value. [You may find that (defendant’s name) actively desired to defraud, if he failed to pay the check [draft or order] under the following circumstances:
1) a written notice was sent by certified mail, delivered or personally offered to him; and
2) the notice said that the check was not paid when it was presented to the bank;
3) the notice was addressed to him at the address shown on the check [draft or order] [or at his last known address shown on the bank's records]; and
4) ten days past after the notice was mailed [delivered or personally offered].
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE–KILLING OF A BURGLAR
(Defendant’s name) claims the killing of (victim’s name) was justified. A homicide is justifiable if the defendant killed a person who was committing or attempting to commit a burglary of a dwelling [a place of business] when the defendant
reasonably believed the person was likely to use unlawful force against any person present in a dwelling [place of business].
If you find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) killed (victim’s name) while (victim’s name) was committing or attempting to commit a burglary of a [dwelling or place of business]; and
2) he reasonably believed (the victim) was likely to use unlawful force against someone present in the [dwelling or place of business] during the commission of the burglary;
then the killing is justified and you must find the defendant not guilty. The defendant is not required to retreat from the encounter even when the circumstances indicate that he could have done so.
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE–PREVENTION OR FORCIBLE FELONY
(Defendant’s name) claims that killing (victim’s name) was justified. If you find that:
1) (defendant’s name) killed (victim’s name) to prevent him/her from committing (claimed violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or great bodily harm); and
2) (defendant’s name) believed that (victim’s name) was about to commit (name felony) ; and
3) he reasonably believed that the killing (victim’s name) was necessary to prevent the (name felony); and
4) he reasonably believed that there would be serious danger to his own life if he attempted to prevent the (name felony) without killing (victim’s name);
you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE
(Defendant’s name) claims that his conduct was justified. It is the state’s burden to prove that his conduct was not justified.
JUSTIFICATION–REASONABLE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A LAWFUL ARREST
The defendant’s conduct, otherwise criminal, is justified when the conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is authorized under the Code of Criminal Procedure. An arrest is authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure under the following circumstances:
[A private citizen may arrest if the person arrested has committed a felony.]
[A private citizen may, when called upon by a peace officer, aid in the arrest of a person.]
[A peace officer may arrest if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested has committed an offense.]
[A peace officer may arrest if he has a warrant to arrest the person arrested.]
[A peace officer may arrest if he has positive and reliable information that another peace officer has a warrant to arrest the person arrested.]
An arrest may be reasonably accomplished by the following means:
[The person making an authorized arrest may use reasonable force to effect the arrest and detention, and also to overcome any resistance or threatened resistance, of the person being arrested or detained.]
[In order to make a lawful arrest, a peace officer, who has announced his authority and purpose, may break open an outer or inner door or window of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling, or other structure, movable or immovable, where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if the officer is refused or otherwise obstructed from admittance. The peace officer need not announce his authority and purpose when to do so would imperil the arrest.]
JUSTIFICATION–COMPULSION
(Defendant’s name) claims that his conduct, otherwise criminal, was justified because the (offense charged) was committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm and he reasonably believed (person making the threat) was present and would carry out the threats immediately if he did not commit (the crime charged).
If you find that:
1) (defendant’s name) committed (offense charged) because he was compelled by threats of death or great bodily harm; and
2) he reasonably believed (person making the threat) was present and would carry out the threats immediately if he did not commit (crime charged);
then you must find the defendant not guilty.
JUSTIFICATION–PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
(Defendant’s name) claims that his conduct, otherwise criminal, was justified because his failure to (name affirmative duty) was a physical impossibility. If you find that:
1) the (offense charged) consists of (defendant’s name)’s failure to perform an affirmative duty; and
2) it was physically impossible for him to (name affirmative duty);
then you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the aggravated kidnapping of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated kidnapping, you must find that:
1) [he forcibly seized (Victim’s name) and carried [her] [him] from one place to another], or [he enticed or persuaded (Victim’s name) to go from one place to another] or [he imprisoned or hid (Victim’s name); and
2) he did so with an active desire to force (victim’s name)[or some other person to give up something of apparent present or prospective value in order to secure the release of; and
3) was under the actual or apparent control of the defendant.
Something of value must be given the broadest possible construction, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING--REMOVAL BY PARENT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (name the child). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he is the parent of (name the child); and
2) (person from whose custody victim was taken) had been awarded custody of (name the child) by (name the court); and
3) (defendant’s name) intentionally took, enticed or decoyed (name the child) away from (name of custodian)’s custody; and
4) (defendant’s name) took (name the child) out of the State of Louisiana; and
5) he acted without (name of custodian)'s consent; and
6) he actively desired to defeat the jurisdiction of (name the court) over the custody of (name the child).
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING--ENTICING CHILD UNDER 14
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (name the child).
Simple kidnapping is the intentional taking, enticing or
decoying away, for an unlawful purpose, of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without the consent of the child's parent or the person charged with the child's custody.
To convict (defendant’s name) of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he intentionally took, enticed or decoyed (name the child) away for an unlawful purpose; and
2) (name the child) was under the age of fourteen at the time; and
3) he acted without the consent of the child's parent or any other person charged with custody of the child; and
4) (name the child) was not the defendant's child.
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING--FORCIBLE SEIZING
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (name of person). To convict the defendant of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he intentionally and forcibly seized (name of person) and carried [him] [her] from one place to another; and
2) he acted without (name of victim)’s consent.
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING –ORPHANS AND INSANE AND FEEBLEMINDED PERSONS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (victim’s name) from (describe the institution to which the victim was committed). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he intentionally took, enticed or decoyed (victim’s name) away from (describe the institution); and
2) he acted without the consent of the proper authority; and
3) (victim’s name) was [lawfully] committed to (describe the institution).
MANSLAUGHTER – HEAT OF BLOOD
(Defendant’name) is charged with manslaughter by killing (victim’s name). To find (defendant’s name) guilty of manslaughter, you must find that:
1 he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he actively desired the death of or great bodily harm to (victim’s name).
3) he acted in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection.
If you decide that the state failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
MANSLAUGHTER–RESISTING ARREST
(Defendant’s name) is charged with manslaughter by killing (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of manslaughter, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name) whether or not he had an intent to kill; and
2) he killed when he was resisting a lawful arrest by means or in a manner not inherently dangerous].
MANSLAUGHTER
(Defendant’s name) is charged with manslaughter by killing (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of manslaughter, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name) whether or not he intended to kill; and
2) he killed while he was committing or attempting to commit (name felony or misdemeanor)
[Define felony or misdemeanor relied upon.]
MULTIPLE OFFENSE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
(Defendant’s name) is charged with [second] [third] offense possession of marijuana.
To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he knowingly [or intentionally] possessed marijuana; and
2) he was previously convicted of possession of marijuana on the following occasion(s): [describe the convictions alleged in the indictment].
MOLESTATION OF A JUVENILE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the molestation of a juvenile. To convict (defendant’s name) of molestation, you must find:
1) he performed a lewd or indecent act upon [or in the presence of] (victim’s name); and 2) (victim’s name) was under the age of seventeen; and
3) (Victim’s name) was more than two years younger than (defendant’s name); and
4) (defendant’s name) actively desired to arouse or gratify the his own sexual desires [or the sexual desires of (victim’s name); and
5) (defendant’s name) used [force, violence, duress, menace, psychological intimidation, threat of great bodily harm, or used influence by virtue of a position of control or supervision over (victim’s name)].
Lack of knowledge of the age of the child is not a defense.
FIRST DEGREE MURDER
(Defendant’s name) is charged with first degree murder of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of first degree murder, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he defendant actively desire to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
3) [he was committing or attempting to commit of (name the offense).]
[he actively desired to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon a (describe fireman,
peace officer, or public official) engaged in the performance of his lawful duties.]
[he actively desired to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.]
[he offered or was offered, or gave or received anything of value to kill.]
Attempted 2nd Degree Murder
The State has charged (defendant’s name) with the attempted second degree murder of (victim’s name). Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender actively desired to kill. A person who actively desires to commit a crime and does something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing the crime is guilty of an attempt to commit that crime. It doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, the defendant would have actually committed the crime. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to be an attempt. What (defendant’s name) actively desired must be determined in light of ordinary experience. It is a question of fact which you may infer from the circumstances.
All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act making up the crime, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly advise or get another to commit the crime, are principals and are guilty of the crime charged.
So, to convict (defendant’s name) of attempted second degree murder, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) actively desired to kill (victim’s name); and
2) (defendant’s name) was a principal or did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward killing (victim’s name).
. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted second degree murder, you must consider whether the state proved that he is guilty of attempted manslaughter. Manslaughter occurs when a person kills another in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. If you find that the person’s blood had actually cooled, or that an average person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed, the provocation is not sufficient to make an attempted killing an attempted manslaughter.
To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted manslaughter, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) actively desired to kill (victim’s name);
2) In sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward killing (victim’s name).
[ In sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, (defendant’s name) was lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to kill (victim’s name)] [ In sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, (defendant’s name) was searching for (victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to kill her.]
OR 1) (defendant’s name) actively desired to kill (victim’s name);
2) He acted as a principal with someone who in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward killing (victim’s name).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted manslaughter, you must consider whether the state has proved that he is guilty of aggravated battery. Aggravated battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon a person with a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon includes any instrument which, in the way used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
So, to convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated battery, you must find that:
1) he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim’s name); and
2) He inflicted the force or violence with a dangerous weapon.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of aggravated battery, you must find him not guilty.
SECOND DEGREE MURDER–FELONY MURDER
(Defendant’s name) is charged with second degree murder by killing (victim’s name) while committing or attempting to commit of (name the felony alleged). To convict (defendant’s name) of second degree murder, you must find that:
1) he defendant killed (victim’s name), whether or not he intended to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; and
2) he killed while committing or attempting to commit (name offense(s) relied upon).
MURDER – SECOND DEGREE – INTENT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the second degree murder of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of second degree murder, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he actively desired to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.
SOLICITATION OF MURDER
(Defendant’s name) is accused of soliciting for murder. To convict (Defendant’s name) of solicitation for Murder, you must find that he intentionally asked, urged or tried to get (name person solicited) to kill (victim’s name) with the active desire to kill or inflict great bodily harm.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) solicited for murdered, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted solicitation for murder. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted solicitation for murder, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to ask, urge or try to get (name person solicited) to kill (victim’s name) with the active desire to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
2) he did or omitted something for the purpose of or tending directly toward soliciting for murder.
Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) attempted to solicit for murder, you must return a verdict of not guilty.
AGGRAVATED OBSTRUCTION OF A HIGHWAY OF COMMERCE
The defendant is charged with aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce, you must find that:
1) He placed (describe the thing, if alleged) [or performed an act, (describe the act, if alleged)] on (describe the highway of commerce: railway, railroad, navigable waterway, road, highway, thoroughfare or runway of an airport); and
2) he acted intentionally [or in such disregard of others’ interests that it amounts to a gross deviationbelow the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances]; and
3) it was foreseeable that human life might have been endangered.
“Foreseeable” refers to something which a person of average reasonable intelligence and perception ordinarily would anticipate.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
To find (Defendant’s name) guilty for obstruction of justice, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1. He removed evidence from its location of storage or transfer; and
2. He knew that the removal would or may have reasonably affected the potential criminal proceeding against (the potential defendant) for (crime); and
3. He actively desired to distort the results of the criminal investigation into (crime); and
4.The evidence may have reasonably proved relevant to the criminal investigation into (crime).
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of obstruction of justice, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted obstruction of justice.
To convict (defendant’s name)of attempted obstruction of justice, you must find that he actively desired to remove evidence for the purpose distorting the results of the criminal investigation and did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing obstruction of justice. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt. If you decide that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) of attempted obstruction of justice, you must find him not guilty.
PROOF OF OTHER OFFENSES
Evidence that (defendant’s name) was involved in (a) crime(s) other than the offense(s) for which he is on trial is to be considered only for a limited purpose. That is whether it tends to show [State the purpose for which the court has admitted the evidence; e.g., to show guilty knowledge, absence of mistake or accident, intent, system, motive, or identity.] Remember that the accused is on trial only for (name offense(s) charged). You cannot find him guilty of (name offense charged) merely because he may have committed another crime.
PERJURY
The defendant is charged with perjury in (describe the judicial or other proceeding) by testifying as follows: [Set forth the alleged testimony.] To convict (defendant=s name) of perjury, you must find that:
1) he testified in (describe the proceeding) as follows: [set forth the alleged testimony]; and
2) his testimony was false; and
3) he testified under oath or affirmation; and
4) he knew the statement was false when he made it; and
5) the testimony related to a matter material to the issue or question in controversy; and 6) the testimony was made in [for use in] (describe the judicial proceeding or describe the proceeding before the board or official authorized to take the testimony).
PERJURY–INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (TESTIMONY)
(Defendant’s name) is charged with having committed perjury by testifying as follows in (describe the proceeding): [Set forth the alleged testimony.]and later by testifying as follows in (describe the proceeding): [Set forth the alleged inconsistent testimony.]
To convict (defendant’s name) of perjury, you must find that:
1) he [in (describe the proceeding)] after being sworn [after affirming] as required by law testified as follows: (set forth the testimony); and
2) the testimony was material to the issue or controversy in question in (describe the proceeding); and
3) he [later in (describe the proceeding)] after being sworn [after affirming] testified as follows: (set forth the alleged inconsistent testimony); and
4) the second statement was materially contradictory of or inconsistent with his previous statement and was material to the issue or question in controversy.
(Defendant’s name) is not guilty of perjury in such case if at the time he made each statement he honestly believed the statement to be true.
REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with making repeated phone calls to (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he made repeated telephone calls to (victim); and
2) he made the calls in a way reasonably expected to annoy, torment, abuse, harass, embarrass, or offend.
THREATENING PHONE CALLS
(Defendant’s name) is charged making threatening phone calls. To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he took part in or started a telephone conversation with [call to] (victim); and
2) during that conversation [call] he threatened an illegal [or immoral] act; and
3) he actively desired to coerce, harass, or intimidate [name the person whom the defendant intended to coerce.
PRINCIPALS
All persons who knowingly participate in the planning or execution of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act making up the crime, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly advise or get another to commit the crime, are principals and are guilty of the crime.
PUBLIC BRIBERY--ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE BY OFFICIAL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. It is alleged that (defendant’s name), as (describe the office), [directly or indirectly] accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that (describe the thing of value) was given [offered] with intent to influence the his conduct in relation to his position or duty as (describe the office). To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was (describe the office); and
2) he [directly or indirectly] accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given [offered] with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employment, position or duty as a (describe the office); and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE BY ELECTION OFFICIAL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that (defendant’s name) as an election official at a election directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was an election official at an election; and
2) he directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given [offered] with the intent to influence his conduct as an election official; and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–BRIBERY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that (defendant’s name) gave [or offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name the official) with intent to influence his conduct as (describe his official status). To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he gave [offered to give] directly or indirectly (describe the thing of value) to (name); and
2) (name) was a public officer [employee] serving as (describe his official status);
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) as a (describe his official status); and
4) (describe the thing of value) had apparent, present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE BY GRAND OR PETIT JUROR
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that (defendant’s name), as a juror, directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given [or offered] with the intent to influence his conduct as a juror. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was a juror; and
2) he directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name), knowing that it was given [offered] with intent to influence his conduct as a juror; and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent, present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–BRIBERY OF A JUROR
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that he gave [offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name the juror) with intent to influence his conduct as a juror. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he gave [offered to give] either directly or indirectly (describe the thing of value) to (name); and
2) (name) was a juror; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) as a juror; and
4) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE BY A WITNESS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that he was a witness or person about to be called as a witness upon a trial [or other proceeding (describe the proceeding if alleged)] before (describe the court, board or hearing officer). It further alleges that (defendant’s name) directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his duty as a witness. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was a witness or person about to be called as a witness upon a [trial or other proceeding] (describe the trial or other proceeding if alleged) before a [court, board or hearing officer] (describe the court, board or hearing officer if alleged); and
2) he directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name), knowing that it was given [offered] with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position or duty as a witness or person about to be called as a witness; and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective valuE.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–BRIBERY OF A WITNESS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that he directly or indirectly gave [offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name), and that (name) was a witness or a person about to be called as a witness upon a (trial or other proceeding) before (court, board or officer) with intent to influence his conduct in relationship to his duty as a witness. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he directly or indirectly gave [offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name); and
2) (name) was a witness or in a (trial or other proceeding) before (court, board or officer); and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence (name)’s conduct as a witness in a (trial or other proceeding) before (court, board or officer); and
4) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION-JUROR
(Defendant’s name) is charged public intimidation of (name), a juror. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a juror; and
3) (Defendant’s name) actively desired to influence (name)’s conduct in relation to his position or duty as a juror.
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION–INTIMIDATION OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public intimidation of (name), a (describe the status of the person intimidated). To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a (name public office); and
3) he actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his position (employment or duty) as a (describe public office).
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION– SCHOOL BUS OPERATOR
(Defendant’s name) is charged public intimidation of (name), a school bus operator. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a school bus operator; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his [her] position or duty as a school bus operator.
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION–INTIMIDATION OF VOTER OR ELECTION OFFICIAL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with having committed public intimidation of (name), a voter [election official]. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a voter [election official]; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his duty as a voter [election official].
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION–WITNESS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public intimidation of (name), a witness. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was a witness at the time; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his duty as a witness.
^PUBLIC PAYROLL FRAUD–ILLEGALLY RECEIVING PAYMENTS–
ILLEGALLY PERMITTING NAME TO APPEAR ON PAYROLL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public payroll fraud. To convict (defendant’s name) of public payroll fraud, you must find that:
1) he knowingly received (describe the compensation) from (describe the political entity); and
2) the services for which the defendant was paid were not actually performed by him or were grossly inadequate for the compensation he received.
[or] [1) he knowingly permitted his name to be carried on (describe the payroll) for payment from (describe the political entity); and
2) the services for which his name was carried on the payroll actually were not performed by or were grossly inadequate for the payment or compensation received or to be received.]
PURSE SNATCHING
The defendant is charged with purse snatching from (victim). To convict (defendant’s name) of purse snatching, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) he actively desired to permanently deprive the owner of thing taken; and
3) the thing stolen was contained within a purse or wallet which was on (victim)’s person or in her immediate control; and
4) (defendant’s name) used force, intimidation or snatching in order to accomplish the theft.
Something of value must be given the broadest possible construction, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
AGGRAVATED RAPE–RESISTANCE OR THREATS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the aggravated rape of (Victim’s name).
To convict (Defendant’s name) of aggravated rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (Victim’s name) without the [her/his] lawful consent; and
2) (Victim’s name) resisted to the utmost but [his] [her] resistance was overcome by force, or s/he was prevented from resisting by threats of great and immediate bodily harm with the apparent power of execution.
Sexual intercourse can take place even though emission does not occur. Any [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual penetration, however slight, is enough.
AGGRAVATED RAPE–MINORS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the aggravated rape of (victim). To convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) was under the age of twelve.
(Defendant’s name)’s lack of knowledge of the (victim’s name)’s age is not a defense. Sexual intercourse can take place even though emission does not occur. Any [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual penetration, however slight, is enough.
FORCIBLE RAPE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with forcible rape of (victim’s name). To convict (Defendant’s name) of forcible rape, if you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name) without he consent; and
2) he prevented (victim’s name) from resisting the intercourse by force or threats of physical violence; and
3) (victim’s name) reasonably believed that resistance would not prevent the rape.
Sexual intercourse can take place even though emission does not occur. Any [anal] [vaginal] sexual penetration, however slight, is enough.
SIMPLE RAPE– DECEPTION
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple rape of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) believes that she is having sexual intercourse with her husband; and
3) (dfendant’s name) intentionally induce her belief by pretense, concealment or deception.
SIMPLE RAPE– VICTIM INTOXICATED
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple rape of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) was incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act of sexual intercourse; and
3) [his] [her] incapacity was produced by an intoxicating agent; and
4) (defendant’s name) knew or should have know of (victim’s name)’s incapacity.
SIMPLE RAPE– VICTIM UNSOUND MIND
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple rape of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) was incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act of sexual intercourse; and
3) [his] [her] incapacity was because of unsoundness of mind; and
4) (defendant’s name) knew or should have know of (victim’s name)’s incapacity.
RECEIVING STOLEN THINGS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with receiving [obtaining or concealing] (name the things) of a value of _____________ dollars under circumstances which indicate that he knew or had good reason to believe that the things had been taken in a [theft] [robbery]. To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he intentionally received [obtained or conceal] (name the things); and
2) the name the things) had been taken [during a robbery or theft;] and
3) he knew or had good reason to believe when he received the (name the things)
that they had been stolen; and
4) the value of the stolen things was (value alleged in the indictment) dollars.
[Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to someone else either without his consent or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations and with the active desire to permanently deprive the person of the thing taken or misappropriated. "Anything of value" includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value.] [Robbery is the taking of anything of value from someone's person or from his immediate control, by use of force or intimidation.]
INCITING TO RIOT RESULTING IN PROPERTY DAMAGE IN EXCESS OF $5000.00
(Defendant=s name) is charged with inciting a riot which resulted in property damage exceeding $5000.00. A “riot” is a public disturbance involving a group
of three or more persons acting together which involves disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, and results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.
To find (defendant name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he deliberately tried to arouse or get another person or persons to create or participate in a riot; and
2) as a result of his effort, more than $5,000.00 of property damage occurred.
INCITING TO RIOT RESULTING IN DEATH
The defendant is charged with inciting a riot which resulted in the death of (victim). A “riot” is a public disturbance by a group of three or more persons acting together which involves disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, and results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property. To convict (defendants name) of inciting a riot which resulted in death, you must find that:
1) he deliberately tried to arouse or get another person or persons to create or
participate in a riot; and
2) as a result of his efforts, (victim) died.
INCITING TO RIOT RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY
(Defendant=s name) is charged with inciting a riot which resulted in serious bodily injury to (victim). A “riot” is a public disturbance involving an group of three or more persons acting together which involves disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, and results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property. To find (defendant=s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he deliberately tried to arouse or get another person or persons to create or participate in a riot; and
2) as a result of his efforts, (victim) received bodily injury, involving unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death.
FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the first degree robbery of (victim).
First degree robbery is the taking of anything of value
from the person of someone or which is in the immediate control of that person when the offender leads the person to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.
To convict (defendant’s namw) of first degree robbery, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (victim)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (victim’s name) to take the thing; and
4) he lead (victim’s name) to reasonably believed that he was armed with a dangerous weapon.
Something of value includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value. A dangerous weapon includes any instrument which is used in way calculated or likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of first degree robbery, you must decide if he is guilty of attempted first degree robbery. A person who has a specific intent to commit a crime and does or omits something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing the crime is guilty of an attempt to commit that crime. It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, the defendant would have actually committed the crime. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
Lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime is sufficient to make up an attempt to commit that crime. Searching for the intended victim with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime is sufficient to make up an attempt to commit that crime.
Because an attempt is a lesser grade of the intended offense, the defendant may be convicted of an attempt although it appears at trial that the defendant actually committed the completed offense which he is charged with attempting to commit.
To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted first degree robbery, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to commit first degree robbery; and
2) he did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing first degree robbery;
[2) he lay in wait with a dangerous weapon intending to commit first degree robbery.]
[2) searched for (victim) with a dangerous weapon intending to commit first degree robbery.]
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of attempted first degree robbery, you must decide if he is guilty of simple robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of simple robbery, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in the (victim)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (victim’s name) to accomplish the taking.
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of simple robbery, you must decide if he is guilty of attempted simple robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to commit simple robbery; and
2) he did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of attempted simple robbery, you must find him not guilty.
ARMED ROBBERY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the armed robbery of (Victim’s name). To convict (Defendant’s name) of armed robbery, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking; and
4) (Defendant’s Name) was armed with a dangerous weapon.
If you decide that the state has proven (Defendant’s name) guilty of armed robbery, you must decide whether the state has proven beyond a doubt that (Defendant’s name) was armed with a firearm.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of armed robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted armed robbery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted armed robbery, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit the crime of armed robbery; and did one of the following things:
1) did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing armed robbery; or
2) laid in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit first degree robbery; or 3) searched for (Victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit armed robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted armed robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of first degree robbery.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of first degree robbery, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking; and
4) (Defendant’s name) led (Victim’s name) to reasonably believed that he was armed with a dangerous weapon.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of first degree robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted first degree robbery. T
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted first degree robbery, you must find that he actively desired to commit first degree robbery; and did one of the following things:
1) did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing first degree robbery; or
2) laid in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit first degree robbery; or 3) searched for (Victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit first degree robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted first degree robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of simple robbery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of simple robbery, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in the (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of simple robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted simple robbery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit simple robbery and did one of the following things:
1) did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery; or
2) laid in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit simple robbery; or
3) searched for (Victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit simple robbery. If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted simple robbery, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY
(Defendants name) is charged with the attempted armed robbery of (victims name). To convict (Defendants name) of attempted armed robbery, you must find that he actively desired to take something of value from (victims name)’s possession or immediate control while armed with dangerous weapon; and did or omitted something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing armed robbery. Something of value includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually committed armed robbery. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt. Because an attempt is a lesser grade of the intended offense, (defendant’s name) may be convicted of an attempt although it appears that he actually committed an armed robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted first degree robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted first degree robbery, you must find that he actively desired to take something of value from (victim’s name)’s person or his/her immediate control while leading him/her to believe that he was armed with a dangerous weapon; and did or omitted something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing first degree robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted first degree robbery, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted simple robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that (defendant’s name) actively desired to take something of value from (victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control, using force or intimidation and did or omitted something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted simple robbery, you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
SIMPLE ROBBERY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple robbery of (victim’s name). In order to convict (Defendant’s name) of simple robbery, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit the crime of simple robbery and did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted simple robbery, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
SELF-DEFENSE
(Defendant’s name) claims that he acted in self-defense. He does not have to prove it. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
SELF-DEFENSE
You have heard self-defense mentioned in this case. (Defendant’s name) does not have to prove that he acted in self-defense. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. For our purposes self-defense requires that:
1) (Defendant’s name) reasonably believed that he was in immediate danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm; and
2) the killing was necessary to save himself from that danger.
The danger doesn’t have to be real as long as (defendant’s name) reasonably believed that it was. In deciding whether (defendant’s name) reasonably believed that the killing was necessary, you should consider:
(1) the possibility of retreating to avoid the necessity of taking human life;
(2) the excitement and confusion of the occasion;
(3) the possibility of using force less than killing to prevent the danger to himself; and
(4) (defendant’s name)’s knowledge of (victim’s name)’s dangerous character, if any.
A person who starts a fight can’t claim self-defense unless:
1) he withdraws from the conflict; and
2) his withdrawal is in good faith; and
3) he withdraws in a way that notifies the other person that he wants to withdraw and stop the fight.
So, if you find that:
(1) (defendant’s name) killed (victim’s name); and
(2) he believed that he was in danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm; and
(3) he believed the killing was necessary to save himself from the danger; and
(4) his beliefs were reasonable in light of the circumstances; and
(5) he didn’t start the fight or he withdrew in the way I just described. then you must find (defendant’s name) acted in self-defense.
SELF-DEFENSE NON-LETHAL
A person is justified in using force to prevent a forcible offense against him if the force used is reasonable and apparently necessary. If you find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) committed the offense charged to prevent a forcible offense against him; and
2) the amount of force or violence used was reasonable; and
3) the force or violence used was apparently necessary;
then you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
SIMPLE BURGLARY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple burglary of a structure [vehicle, watercraft] belonging to (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple burglary, you must find that:
1) he entered the structure [vehicle, watercraft] without authority; and
2) he entered actively desiring to take something of value, which belongs to someone else; and
3) he actively desired to permanently deprive the owner of the thing he desired to take.
Something of value includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
THEFT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with theft of (identify property alleged to be stolen) of a value of _____ dollars. To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he misappropriated or took (identify property), belonging to (name the owner if set forth); and
2) the misappropriation or taking was without the (the owner)’s consent [or was by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations]; and
3) he defendant actively desire to permanently deprive [the owner] of the (identify property); and
4) the property’s value was ______ dollars.
UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OF INHABITED DWELLING
(Defendant’s name) is charged with unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. To convict him you must find that he intentionally entered a home without authorization. If you are not convince beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of unauthorized entry of a inhabited dwelling, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted unauthorized of entry of an inhabited dwelling. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted unauthorized entry of a inhabited dwelling, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to enter a home with authorization; and
2) he did something for the purpose of or tending directly toward entry into that home.
If you are not convince beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted unauthorized entry of a inhabited dwelling, you must consider whether he is guilty of criminal trespass. To convict (defendant’s name) of criminal trespass, you must find that he intentionally entered a structure without authorization.
If you are not convince beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of criminal trespass, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted criminal trespass. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted criminal trespass, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to enter a structure without authorization; and
2) he did something for the purpose of or tending directly toward entering that structure.
ILLEGAL USE OF WEAPONS–FIREARMS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with illegal use of a weapon. To convict (defendant’s name) of illegal use of a weapon, you must find that:
1) he discharged a firearm; and
2) he acted intentionally or in such disregard of other’s interests that it amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances;
3) it was foreseeable that the discharge might result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.
“Foreseeable” refers to something which a person of average, reasonable intelligence and perception ordinarily would anticipate.
I will now explain the law which you must apply in deciding this case. You must follow this explanation. You must decide the facts from the testimony and other evidence and apply the law to those facts in reaching your verdict. Do not single out any of these explanations and disregard others. The order of the explanations does not indicate that one explanation is more important than another.
If I have given you the impression that I have an opinion regarding any fact in this case, you are to disregard that impression. If I have given the impression that I have an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of (defendant’s name), you are to disregard that impression. You are not to be influenced by sympathy, emotion, prejudice, or public opinion. You must decide this case only on the evidence or the lack of evidence. The bill of information (or indictment) is not evidence. It is nothing more than a written, formal accusation against (defendant’s name) charging him with a crime. Statements and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence. You must determine the facts only from the evidence presented. The evidence which you should consider consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits such as writings and physical objects which I have permitted the parties to introduce. Do not consider any evidence which was not admitted, or which you were instructed to disregard, or to which an objection was sustained. As jurors you alone shall determine the value and believability of the evidence. You should study carefully the testimony given and the circumstances under which the witness has testified. You may consider these things:
1) the witness’s manner while testifying;
2) any reason the witness may have for testifying in favor of or against the state or (defendant’s name);
3) the extent to which the testimony is supported or contradicted by other evidence; and
4) the witness’s ability and opportunity to observe and remember the things that he (or she) testified about;
5) whether he made a prior statement inconsistent with his testimony;
6) whether he has been convicted of a felony.
[You should judge (defendant’s name)’s testimony the same way you judge the testimony of any other witness].
In deciding the case you must remember that (defendant’s name) is presumed to be innocent until each part of the charge necessary to establish his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (defendant’s name) is not required to prove that he is innocent. In considering the evidence, you must give (defendant’s name) the benefit of every reasonable doubt which you may find in the evidence or from the lack of evidence. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty, you must find him not guilty. The state has accused (defendant’s name) of (the crime or crimes charged).
(Define the crimes charged & responsive verdicts)
When you enter the jury room, it is your duty to listen to one another, to consider each other’s views, and to discuss the evidence with the purpose of reaching a just verdict, if you can do so without giving up to your individual judgment.
You are not advocates for one side or the other. Do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and to change your opinion, if you are convinced you are wrong. But do not surrender your honest belief as to the value and effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. When you leave to decide the case, you must first elect a foreperson, who will preside over your discussions. When you reach a verdict, the foreperson must write the verdict on the back of the list of responsive verdicts.
(Review Verdict Form)
He or she must sign the verdict and deliver it to me in open court. Ten of you must agree to reach a verdict on each charge. You must consider each charge separately. When you have reached your verdict on both charges, simply knock on the door and advise the deputy sheriff. The court will reconvene to receive it. Court will recess until you reach a verdict.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with being an accessory after the fact to (name of felony).
[Define the felony.]
To convict (Defendant’s name) of being an accessory after the fact, you must find that:
1) (Perpertrator’s name) committed (name of felony); and
2) (Defendant’s name) knew or had reasonable ground to believe that (perpetrator’s name) committed (name of felony); and
3) (Defendant’s name) [harbored, aided or concealed](Perpertrator’s name); and
4) (Defendant’s name) actively desired for (Perpertrator’s name) to avoid or escape from [arrest, trial, conviction or punishment].
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of accessory after the fact, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted accessory after the fact. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted accessory after the fact, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit the crime of accessory after the fact; and did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing accessory after the fact.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted accessory after the fact, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
Accomplice’s Testimony
If someone is involved with another person in committing a crime, he can testify at that person’s trial. Evidence supporting this testimony is desirable, but not always necessary. You can convict (defendant’s name) on this kind of testimony by itself, but you should consider it very carefully and convict him only if you are satisfied that the testimony is true and reliable. By supporting evidence I mean some real and independent evidence of a material fact connecting (defendant’s name) with committing the crime charged. Supporting evidence that merely raises a suspicion of guilt, because the accused had an opportunity to commit the crime, is not enough.
AGGRESSOR DOCTRINE
A person who is who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a way that his adversary knows or should know that he wants to withdraw and stop the conflict.
ANYTHING OF VALUE
The phrase “anything of value” must be given the broadest possible meaning, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
[In cases involving theft by shoplifting, the term "value" is the actual retail price of the property at the time of the offense.]
[The phrase "anything of value" also includes transportation, telephone, and telegraph services, or any other services available for hire.]
AGGRAVATED ARSON
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated arson of (describe object). To convict (Defendant’s name) of aggravated arson, you must find that:
1) he set fire to [or intentionally damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object); and
2) it was foreseeable that this action might endanger human life.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of aggravated arson, you must consider whether he is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of $500 or more. To convict (defendant’s name) of simple arson causing damage of $500 or more, you must find that:
1) he intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent; and
2) the damage done by the fire [or explosive substance] amounted to $500 or more.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of $500 or more, you must consider whether he is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500. In order to convict the defendant of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find him not guilty.
ARSON WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD
(Defendant’s name) is charged with Arson with Intent to Defraud by setting fire to [or damaging by explosive substance] (designate the property) with the intent to defraud (name the person or corporation, if alleged).
To convict (Defendant’s name), you must find that:
1) he set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (property); and
2) he actively desired to defraud (name the person or corporation, if alleged).
SIMPLE ARSON
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple arson by setting fire to [or intentionally damaging by explosive substance] (describe object) causing damage of $500 or more without the consent of the owner. In order to convict the defendant of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) the defendant intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent; and
2) damage done by the fire [or explosive substance] amounted to $500 or more.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of $500 or more, you must consider whether he is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500. In order to convict the defendant of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) intentionally set fire to [or damaged by an explosive substance] (describe object) belonging to (owner’s name) without his consent.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of simple arson, causing damage of less than $500, you must find him not guilty.
SECOND DEGREE BATTERY
(Defendant’s name) is accused of the second degree battery of (victim’s name). To convict (Defendant’s name) of second degree battery, you must find that he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim’s name) without his/her consent, inflicting bodily injury, involving unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death.
If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of second degree battery, you must decide if the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of simple battery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of simple battery, you must find that he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim’s name) without her consent.
If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of simple battery, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
AGGRAVATED BATTERY–FORCE OR VIOLENCE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with committing an aggravated battery upon (victim’s name) with a (describe the instrumentality alleged to be a dangerous weapon).
Aggravated battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon a person with a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrument which, in the way used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
To convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated battery, you must find that:
1) he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim); and
2) the force or violence was inflicted with (describe the dangerous weapon); and
3) (describe the instrumentality) was an instrument used in a way likely or calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.
AGGRAVATED BATTERY–POISON OR NOXIOUS LIQUID
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated battery upon (victim’s name) by giving him poison or a noxious liquid. In order to convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated battery, you must find that:
1) he intentionally administered (substance’s name) to (victim’s name); and
2) the (substance’s name) was a poison or noxious substance used in a way likely or calculated to cause death or great bodily harm.
MANUFACTURE AND POSSESSION OF A BOMB
(Defendant’s name) is charged with knowingly and intentionally possessing a bomb [having a bomb under his control] [manufacturing a bomb]. A bomb is an explosive compound or mixture with a detonator or initiator, or both. [The term bomb does not include small arms ammunition.] [The term bomb does not include fireworks which are possessed in conformity with law.]
[Explosives include gunpowders, powders used for blasting, all forms of high explosives, blasting materials, fuses (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents, smokeless powders, and any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion or by detonation of the compound, mixture or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.]
To convict (defendant’s name) of possession [manufacture] of a bomb, you must find that:
1) the defendant knowingly and intentionally [possessed] [controlled] [manufactured] a bomb; and
2) the defendant had no license authorizing his [control] [possession] [manufacture] of the bomb.
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A JUVENILE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with carnal knowledge of (juvenile’s name), who is claimed to be an unmarried female under the age of 17 and more than two years younger than (defendant’s name).
In order to convict (defendant’s name) of carnal knowledge of a juvenile, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) and (juvenile’s name) had vaginal (anal or oral) sexual intercourse with her consent; and
2) (defendant’s name) was at least seventeen years old at the time; and
3) (Juvenile’s name) was at least twelve years old but less than seventeen years old at the time; and
4) (defendant’s name) is more than two years older than (juvenile’s name); and
5) (Juvenile’s name) was not married at the time.
CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT
If you find that (defendant’s name) offered evidence of his good character, you must consider it with all the other evidence, and give it appropriate consideration. You may think it improbable that a person of good character would commit such (an) offense(s). However, if you find that the state has proven (defendant’s name)’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty to find him guilty even though there may be evidence of good character.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Here’s an example to help you understand the difference. If your yard, your driveway and the streets were dry when you went to bed last night and they were all wet when you woke up this morning, that is circumstantial evidence that it rained last night. Now, if your neighbor came home late last night and, he felt and saw raindrops falling, that is direct evidence that it rained last night. In deciding the case you must presume that the defendant is innocent until each part of the charge necessary to establish his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove that he is innocent. In considering the evidence, you must give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt that you may find in the evidence or from the lack of evidence. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must find him not guilty. Now, if you find that this case involves only circumstantial evidence, you cannot find the defendant guilty unless the facts proved by the evidence exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.
CONFESSION
The state has offered a statement alleged to be made by (defendant’s name). You must determine:
1) did (defendant’s name) make the statement;
2) was the statement accurately repeated.
If you determine that (Defendant’s name) made a statement, you must decide the value and believability that you should give it. In making that decision, you should consider all the circumstances surrounding the statement. You should consider whether (defendant’s name) made the statement freely and voluntarily, without the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, inducement, or promises.
CONSPIRACY
The defendant is charged with conspiring with (Co-conspirator’s name) for the specific purpose of committing (name of crime). [Define the crime.]
To convict (defendant’s name) of conspiracy to commit (name of the crime) you must find that:
1) he entered into an agreement or combination with (name of co-conspirator); and
2) the specific purpose of the agreement or combination was to commit (name of crime); and
3) one of the conspirators did something toward accomplishing the object of the agreement or combination.
CONTRIBUTING TO DELINQUENCY OF JUVENILES–SEXUALLY IMMORAL ACT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with contributing to the delinquency of (juvenile’s name) by intentional enticing, aiding or permitting, a child under the age of seventeen to perform any sexually immoral act.
To convict (defendant’s name) of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, you must find that:
1) He intentionally enticed, aided, or permitted (juvenile’s name) to perform a sexually immoral act; and
2) (Juvenile’s name) was under the age of seventeen at the time of the act; and
3) (defendant’s name) was over seventeen at the time of the act.
Lack of knowledge of the child’s age is not a defense.
AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated criminal damage to (describe property) belonging to (victim’s name) [and causing damage amounting to ____________________________dollars.]
To convict (Defendant’s Name) of aggravated criminal damage to property, you must find that
1) he intentionally damaged (describe property);
2) it was foreseeable that (a) human being(s) might have his life [their lives] endangered; and
3) the damage was caused by [means other than fire or explosion]
Foreseeable refers to that which ordinarily would be anticipated by a human being of average reasonable intelligence and perception.
SIMPLE CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with criminal damage to (describe the property) in the amount of _____ dollars without the owner’s consent. To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he intentionally damaged (describe the property); and
2) (name of owner), the owner of the property, did not consent to the damage; and
3) the damage was caused by [describe the means other than fire or explosion]; and
4) the damage amounted to __________________ dollars.
SIMPLE CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with criminal damage to (describe the property) in the amount of _____ dollars without the owner’s consent. To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he intentionally damaged (describe the property); and
2) (name of owner), the owner of the property, did not consent to the damage; and
3) the damage was caused by [describe the means other than fire or explosion]; and
4) the damage amounted to __________________ dollars.
CRIMINAL INTENT
Criminal intent may be specific or general. Specific criminal intent exists when the circumstances indicate that (defendant’s name) actively desired a particular illegal result to follow his act or failure to act. General criminal intent is present when the circumstances indicate that (defendant>s name) considered that the particular illegal result was reasonably certain to follow his act or failure to act. General criminal intent is always present when there is specific intent. Whether criminal intent is present must be determined in light of ordinary experience. Intent is a question of fact which may be inferred from the circumstances. You may [presume] [infer] that (defendant’s name) intended the natural and probable consequences of his acts.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Criminal negligence exists when there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender’s conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful person under similar circumstances. The mere failure of a person to act reasonably does not constitute criminal negligence.
CRUELTY TO JUVENILES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with cruelty to a juvenile.
To convict (defendant’s name) of cruelty to juveniles, you must find that:
1) he mistreated [neglected] (juvenile’s name) intentionally or with such disregard for (juvenile’s name)’s interests that he grossly deviatedbelow the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances; and
2) (Juvenile’s name) was under seventeen; and
3) (defendant’s name)’s mistreatment [or neglect] caused (juvenile’s name) unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(Defendant’s name)’s lack of knowledge of the child’s age is not a defense
CUSTODY
Custody requires an actual restraint of the suspect, which may be imposed by force or may result from the suspect’s submission to the custody of the one arresting him. Whether (Defendant’s name) was in custody is a fact that you must decide from the totality of the circumstances. Factors to be considered include time, place, the law enforcement officer’s intent, (defendant’s name)’s belief, and the existence of a warrant. The subjective intent of the law enforcement officer, if disclosed to (defendant’s name), is relevant, but only to the extent it would affect how a reasonable person would gauge the breadth of his freedom of action. (Defendant’s name)’s belief must be determined objectively, in retrospect, from the totality of the circumstances. Restraint may be imposed by an officer’s words, his actions, or both, even though the magic word Arrest is not spoken.
ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities. To convict (defendant’s name) of illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities, you must find that:
1) he (describe the throwing, placing, or other use of the article, substance, or liquid); and
2) he acted intentionally or in such disregard of other’s interests that it amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances;
3) it was foreseeable that the act might result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.
ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITIES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities. To convict (defendant’s name) of illegal use of dangerous instrumentalities, you must find that:
1) he (describe the throwing, placing, or other use of the article, substance, or liquid); and
2) he acted intentionally or in such disregard of other’s interests that it amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances;
3) it was foreseeable that the act might result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.
DANGEROUS WEAPON
“Dangerous weapon” includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrument, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR TESTIFY
(Defendant’s name) is not required to call any witnesses or to produce any evidence. He is not required to testify. You may not presume guilt nor infer anything, from the fact that (defendant’s name) did not testify.
DEFENSE OF OTHERS–HOMICIDE AND OTHER CASES
(Defendant’s name) claims that he used force [killed] to defend (other person).
If you find that:
1) (defendant’s name) committed (offense charged) while defending (other person); and
2) it reasonably appeared to (defendant’s name) that (other person) justifiably could have done the same thing; and
3) (defendant’s name) reasonably believed that his action was necessary to protect (other person);
then you must find him not guilty.
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY–OTHER THAN HOMICIDE CASES
The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession, if the force or violence used is reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent the offense or trespass.
If you find that:
1) (the defendant’s name) committed the offense charged for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense or trespass against property; and
2) the property was in [defendant's name]’s lawful possession [of another]; and
3) the force or violence used by (defendant’s name) was apparently necessary to prevent the forcible offense or trespass against property; and
4) (defendant’s name) used reasonable force or violence to prevent the forcible offense or trespass;
you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
DISTRIBUTION OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with distributing (name the controlled dangerous substance). Distribution is the transfer of possession. Possession can be actual or constructive. A person who has control of a thing constructively possesses it.
To convict (defendant’s name) of distributing (name drug), you must find that:
1) he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name drug); and
2) he knowingly or intentionally transferred possession of the (name drug) to another person.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of distributing (name drug), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempting to distribute (name drug).
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted distributing (name drug), you must find that:
1) he actively desired to distribute (name drug); and
2) he did (or omitted) something for the purpose of and tending directly toward distributing (name drug).
It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, (Defendant’s name) would have actually distributed the (name drug). Mere preparation to distribute (name drug) is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to distribute (name drug), you must consider whether he is guilty of possessing (name drug). To convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing (name drug), you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name drug).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possession of (name drug), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted possession of (name drug). To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempting to possess (name drug), you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess (name drug);
2) he did (or omitted) something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (name drug).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted possession of (name drug), you must find him not guilty.
PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE OF CDS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with production [or manufacture] of (name CDS). It is unlawful for any person knowingly [or intentionally] to produce [or manufacture] (name the controlled dangerous substance). To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that he knowingly [or intentionally] produced [or manufactured] (name CDS).
[Production or manufacture includes planting, cultivation, growing, harvesting, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing, either directly or indirectly, by extraction of substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.-include pertinent synonyms).
FRAUD IN OBTAINING CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
(Defendant’s name) is charged with fraud in obtaining controlled dangerous substances. To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he knowingly [or intentionally] acquired (name the controlled dangerous substance); and
2) he acquired it by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or trickery [by (describe the manner by which the misrepresentation, etc. was practiced if alleged)].
POSSESSION OF CDS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE
The state has accused (Defendant’s name) of knowingly or intentionally possessing (name of drug) with intent to distribute. Possession can be actual or constructive. A person who has control of a thing constructively possesses it. Mere presence in an area where drugs are found is not sufficient to constitute possession. Distribution is the transfer of possession. In determining whether (Defendant’s name) intended to distribute cocaine by may consider whether:
1) he ever distributed or attempted to distributed cocaine;
2) the cocaine is in a form usually associated with distribution;
3) the amount of cocaine creates an inference of intent to distribute because the amount is inconsistent with personal use only;
4) testimony establishes that the amount of cocaine is inconsistent with personal use only;
5) he possessed paraphernalia evidencing an intent to distribute;
In order to convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, you must find that:
1) he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine; and
2) he intended to transfer possession of the cocaine.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess cocaine; and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing cocaine; and
3) he intended to transfer possession of the cocaine..
It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, (Defendant’s name) would have actually committed the crime. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, you must consider whether he is guilty of possession of cocaine.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of possession of cocaine, you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing cocaine, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted possession of cocaine. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempting to possess cocaine, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess cocaine;
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing cocaine.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to possess cocaine, you must find him not guilty.
POSSESSION OF CDS WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with possession of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of possession of (name CDS), you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name CDS).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possession of (name CDS), you must consider whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable that he is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS). To convict Mr. Folse of attempted possession of controlled dangerous substances, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess (name CDS); and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (name CDS).
Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS), you must find him not guilty.
POSSESSION OF ??? GRAMS OF CDS
The state has accused (Defendant’s name) of knowingly or intentionally possessing (quanity) grams or more of (name CDS). Possession can be actual or constructive. A person who has control of a thing constructively possesses it. Distribution is the transfer of possession.
In order to convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS), you must find that:
1) he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name CDS); and
2) the (name CDS) mixture weighs (quantity) grams or more.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempting to possess (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted possession of (name CDS) with intent to distribute, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) actively desired to possess (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS); and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS).
Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempting to possess (quantity) grams or more of (name CDS), you must consider whether he is guilty of possession of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of possession of (name CDS), having previously been convicted of possessing (name CDS) you must find that he knowingly or intentionally possessed (name CDS).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possession of (name CDS), you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS). To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempting to possess (name CDS), you must find that:
1) he actively desired to possess (name CDS);
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing (name CDS).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted possession of (name CDS), you must find him not guilty.
MULTIPLE OFFENSE DWI
The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages [narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbituates] after having been previously convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated [two] [three] times. To find (defendant=s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he was operating a motor vehicle; and
2) while operating the motor vehicle, he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage(s) [narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbituates]; and
3) he was previously convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated on the following occasions: [describe the convictions alleged in the indictment].
ENTRAPMENT
(Defendant’s name) asserts that he was entrapped. Entrapment occurs when an agent, cooperating with police for the purpose obtaining evidence, originates the idea of a crime and induces another person to commit the crime, when that person is not otherwise disposed to do so. The important question is whether or not (defendant’s name) was predisposed to commit the crime. If (defendant’s name) proves more likely than not that he was entrapped, you must find him not guilty.
AGGRAVATED ESCAPE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with aggravated escape by escaping from the lawful custody of (name the officer and describe his official status) [by escaping from (describe the place of lawful confinement)] under circumstances endangering human life.
In order to convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated escape, you must find that:
1) He intentionally left the legal custody of (name and status of officer) [or from (describe the place of confinement) where he was lawfully confined]; and
2) he left under circumstances which endangered human life.
ASSISTING ESCAPE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with assisting the escape of (name the prisoner). To convict (defendant’s name) of assisting escape, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) actively assisted (name the prisoner); and
2) (name the prisoner) was in the lawful custody of (name the officer, agency, or institution with legal custody of prisoner) at the time ; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to aid (name the prisoner) in escaping from lawful custody.
ASSISTING ESCAPE–ASSISTING ESCAPE BY PUBLIC OFFICER
(Defendant’s name), (describe his public office), is accused of assisting the escape of (name the prisoner).
To convict (defendant’s name) of assisting escape, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) was a public officer [serving as (describe defendant's public office)]; and
2) (defendant’s name) actively helped (name the prisoner) escape [permitted (name the prisoner) to escape by intentionally failing to act]; and
3) (name the prisoner) was a prisoner in his custody.
SIMPLE ESCAPE–INTENTIONAL DEPARTURE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple escape by escaping from the lawful custody of (name the officer and describe his official status) [by escaping from (describe the place of confinement) where he was in lawful custody]. To convict (defendant’s name) of simple escape, you must find that:
1) he intentionally left (name the officer and give his official status or describe the place of confinement); and
2) he was lawfully [imprisoned in] [committed to] [detained in] (describe the place of confinement) [or in the lawful custody of (name the officer and give his official status)] when he left.
SIMPLE ESCAPE–FAILURE TO RETURN FROM FURLOUGH
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple escape failing to return from a furlough to (state the place of official confinement to which the defendant was supposed to return) at the appointed time, (state the time and date if alleged). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple escape, you must find that:
1) he was granted a furlough from (state the place of confinement); and
2) he failed to return at the appointed time, (state the date and time if alleged); and
3) the furlough was granted by the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
SIMPLE ESCAPE–FAILURE TO RETURN FROM WORK-RELEASE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple escape by failing to report or return at the appointed time (state the date and time if alleged) from (describe the place of planned employment or other activity). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple escape, you must find that:
1) he was serving a sentence; and
2) he was participating in a work-release program; and
3) he failed to report to [or return from] (describe the place of planned employment or other activity) as set up by the work-release program when he was supposed to. (state the date and time if alleged).
EXTORTION
(Defendant’s name) is charged with extortion.
To convict the defendant of extortion, you must find that:
1) he communicated a threat (describe the threat if alleged) to (name); and
2) he actively desired to obtain something of value [or any acquittance, advantage, or immunity of any description] (describe if alleged).
Something of value must be given the broadest possible construction, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
The following type(s) of threat(s) is (are) enough:
[(1) A threat to cause any unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of any member of his family or of any other person held dear to him;]
[(2) A threat to accuse the individual threatened or any member of his family or any other person held dear to him of a crime;]
[(3) A threat to expose or impute any deformity or disgrace to the individual threatened or to any member of his family or to any other person held dear to him;]
[(4) A threat to expose any secret affecting the individual threatened or any member of his family or any other person held dear to him;]
[(5) A threat to do any harm.]
POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
(Defendant’s name) is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. To convict (Defendant’s name) of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1) (Defendant’s name) was convicted of (felony conviction);
2) He possessed a firearm within ten years following the completion of his sentence, probation, parole or suspension of sentence.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) is guilty of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, you must consider whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable that he attempted to possess a firearm as a convicted felon. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted possession as a convicted felon, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) actively desired to possess a firearm; and
2) he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward possessing a firearm within ten years following the completion of his sentence, probation, parole or suspension of sentence; and
3) he was convicted of (felony conviction).
FLIGHT
If you find that (Defendant’s name) fled, hid or tried to avoid apprehension after a crime was committed, you may consider it with all the other evidence. Flight, hiding or trying to avoid apprehension is not sufficient to prove that he is guilty. You must decide whether his action was due to consciousness of guilt or to other reasons unrelated to guilt.
FORESEEABLE
“Foreseeable” refers to something which a person of average reasonable intelligence and perception ordinarily would anticipate.
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the killing of (victim) by criminal negligence. To convict (defendant’s name), you must find:
1) he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he acted with such disregard of the interest of others that his conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful person under similar circumstances.
IGNORANCE OF LAW
Ignorance of criminal laws is not a defense.
IMPEACHMENT–PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT
The testimony of a witness may be discredited by a showing that the witness made a prior statement which is inconsistent with his present testimony. The prior statements are admitted only to try to discredit the witness–not to show that the statements are true.
INDECENT BEHAVIOR WITH A JUVENILE
The state has accused (defendant’s name) of indecent behavior with juvenile (name). To convict (defendant’s name), you must find that:
1) he performed a lewd or indecent act upon (or in the presence of) a (juvenile’s name) ; and
2) (juvenile’s name) is under seventeen years old; and
3) (juvenile’s name) is more than two years younger than (defendant’s name0; and
4) (defendant’s name) acted while actively desiring to arouse or gratify his own or (juvenile’s name) sexual desires.
Lack of knowledge of (victim’s name) age is not a defense.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of indecent behavior of a juvenile, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted indecent behavior of a juvenile.
To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted indecent behavior of a juvenile, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to perform a lewd or indecent act upon (or in the presence of) (juvenile’s name); and
2) (juvenile’s name) is under seventeen years old; and
3) (juvenile’s name) is more than two years younger than (defendant’s name); and
4) (defendant’s name) actively desired to arouse or gratify his own or (juvenile’s name) sexual desires; and
5) (defendant’s name) did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward performing a lewd or indecent act upon (or in the presence of) (juvenile’s name).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted indecent behavior of a juvenile, you must find him not guilty.
INSANITY
(Defendant’s name) entered a plea of “not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.” So, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) did in fact commit a crime I described, you must decide whether he was insane when the offense was committed. (Defendant’s name) must prove more probably than not that he was insane when he committed the crime. To decide whether (Defendant’s name) was insane, you must consider all of the evidence bearing on his mental condition, including the testimony of experts and of other witnesses, and his conduct and actions. So, if you find that:
1) the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (Defendant’s name) did in fact commit a crime I described; and
2) (Defendant’s name) proved more probably than not that he suffered from a mental disease or defect; and
3) (Defendant’s name) proved more probably than not that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong concerning his conduct at the time of the offense; then your verdict must be “not guilty by reason of insanity”.
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
The fact that a person was intoxicated [drugged] at the time of the commission of a crime is usually no defense. However, if circumstances indicate that (Defendant’s name)’s intoxicated [drugged] condition was produced involuntarily, and the circumstances indicate that the condition directly caused of the commission of a crime, he is not guilty.
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
The fact that a person was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the crime is usually no defense. However, if the circumstances indicate that (defendant’s name) voluntarily became intoxicated and that his intoxicated condition prevented him from actively desiring to commit (name crime requiring specific intent), you must find him not guilty.
ISSUING WORTHLESS CHECKS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with issuing worthless checks in the amount of $_______. To convict (defendant’s name) of issuing worthless check(s) in the amount of $_________, you must find that:
1) he issued (describe the check, draft or order for payment of money) in the amount of $_______ in exchange for something of value [payment on an installment contract or open account]; and
2) he knew at the time he issued the check [draft or order] that he didn’t have enough credit with (name the bank depository on which the instrument is drawn) to pay it in full when it was presented; and
3) he actively desired to defraud.
“Something of value” includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value. [You may find that (defendant’s name) actively desired to defraud, if he failed to pay the check [draft or order] under the following circumstances:
1) a written notice was sent by certified mail, delivered or personally offered to him; and
2) the notice said that the check was not paid when it was presented to the bank;
3) the notice was addressed to him at the address shown on the check [draft or order] [or at his last known address shown on the bank's records]; and
4) ten days past after the notice was mailed [delivered or personally offered].
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE–KILLING OF A BURGLAR
(Defendant’s name) claims the killing of (victim’s name) was justified. A homicide is justifiable if the defendant killed a person who was committing or attempting to commit a burglary of a dwelling [a place of business] when the defendant
reasonably believed the person was likely to use unlawful force against any person present in a dwelling [place of business].
If you find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) killed (victim’s name) while (victim’s name) was committing or attempting to commit a burglary of a [dwelling or place of business]; and
2) he reasonably believed (the victim) was likely to use unlawful force against someone present in the [dwelling or place of business] during the commission of the burglary;
then the killing is justified and you must find the defendant not guilty. The defendant is not required to retreat from the encounter even when the circumstances indicate that he could have done so.
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE–PREVENTION OR FORCIBLE FELONY
(Defendant’s name) claims that killing (victim’s name) was justified. If you find that:
1) (defendant’s name) killed (victim’s name) to prevent him/her from committing (claimed violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or great bodily harm); and
2) (defendant’s name) believed that (victim’s name) was about to commit (name felony) ; and
3) he reasonably believed that the killing (victim’s name) was necessary to prevent the (name felony); and
4) he reasonably believed that there would be serious danger to his own life if he attempted to prevent the (name felony) without killing (victim’s name);
you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE
(Defendant’s name) claims that his conduct was justified. It is the state’s burden to prove that his conduct was not justified.
JUSTIFICATION–REASONABLE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A LAWFUL ARREST
The defendant’s conduct, otherwise criminal, is justified when the conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is authorized under the Code of Criminal Procedure. An arrest is authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure under the following circumstances:
[A private citizen may arrest if the person arrested has committed a felony.]
[A private citizen may, when called upon by a peace officer, aid in the arrest of a person.]
[A peace officer may arrest if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested has committed an offense.]
[A peace officer may arrest if he has a warrant to arrest the person arrested.]
[A peace officer may arrest if he has positive and reliable information that another peace officer has a warrant to arrest the person arrested.]
An arrest may be reasonably accomplished by the following means:
[The person making an authorized arrest may use reasonable force to effect the arrest and detention, and also to overcome any resistance or threatened resistance, of the person being arrested or detained.]
[In order to make a lawful arrest, a peace officer, who has announced his authority and purpose, may break open an outer or inner door or window of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling, or other structure, movable or immovable, where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if the officer is refused or otherwise obstructed from admittance. The peace officer need not announce his authority and purpose when to do so would imperil the arrest.]
JUSTIFICATION–COMPULSION
(Defendant’s name) claims that his conduct, otherwise criminal, was justified because the (offense charged) was committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm and he reasonably believed (person making the threat) was present and would carry out the threats immediately if he did not commit (the crime charged).
If you find that:
1) (defendant’s name) committed (offense charged) because he was compelled by threats of death or great bodily harm; and
2) he reasonably believed (person making the threat) was present and would carry out the threats immediately if he did not commit (crime charged);
then you must find the defendant not guilty.
JUSTIFICATION–PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
(Defendant’s name) claims that his conduct, otherwise criminal, was justified because his failure to (name affirmative duty) was a physical impossibility. If you find that:
1) the (offense charged) consists of (defendant’s name)’s failure to perform an affirmative duty; and
2) it was physically impossible for him to (name affirmative duty);
then you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the aggravated kidnapping of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated kidnapping, you must find that:
1) [he forcibly seized (Victim’s name) and carried [her] [him] from one place to another], or [he enticed or persuaded (Victim’s name) to go from one place to another] or [he imprisoned or hid (Victim’s name); and
2) he did so with an active desire to force (victim’s name)[or some other person to give up something of apparent present or prospective value in order to secure the release of; and
3) was under the actual or apparent control of the defendant.
Something of value must be given the broadest possible construction, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING--REMOVAL BY PARENT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (name the child). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he is the parent of (name the child); and
2) (person from whose custody victim was taken) had been awarded custody of (name the child) by (name the court); and
3) (defendant’s name) intentionally took, enticed or decoyed (name the child) away from (name of custodian)’s custody; and
4) (defendant’s name) took (name the child) out of the State of Louisiana; and
5) he acted without (name of custodian)'s consent; and
6) he actively desired to defeat the jurisdiction of (name the court) over the custody of (name the child).
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING--ENTICING CHILD UNDER 14
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (name the child).
Simple kidnapping is the intentional taking, enticing or
decoying away, for an unlawful purpose, of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without the consent of the child's parent or the person charged with the child's custody.
To convict (defendant’s name) of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he intentionally took, enticed or decoyed (name the child) away for an unlawful purpose; and
2) (name the child) was under the age of fourteen at the time; and
3) he acted without the consent of the child's parent or any other person charged with custody of the child; and
4) (name the child) was not the defendant's child.
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING--FORCIBLE SEIZING
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (name of person). To convict the defendant of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he intentionally and forcibly seized (name of person) and carried [him] [her] from one place to another; and
2) he acted without (name of victim)’s consent.
SIMPLE KIDNAPPING –ORPHANS AND INSANE AND FEEBLEMINDED PERSONS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with kidnapping (victim’s name) from (describe the institution to which the victim was committed). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple kidnapping, you must find that:
1) he intentionally took, enticed or decoyed (victim’s name) away from (describe the institution); and
2) he acted without the consent of the proper authority; and
3) (victim’s name) was [lawfully] committed to (describe the institution).
MANSLAUGHTER – HEAT OF BLOOD
(Defendant’name) is charged with manslaughter by killing (victim’s name). To find (defendant’s name) guilty of manslaughter, you must find that:
1 he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he actively desired the death of or great bodily harm to (victim’s name).
3) he acted in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection.
If you decide that the state failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
MANSLAUGHTER–RESISTING ARREST
(Defendant’s name) is charged with manslaughter by killing (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of manslaughter, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name) whether or not he had an intent to kill; and
2) he killed when he was resisting a lawful arrest by means or in a manner not inherently dangerous].
MANSLAUGHTER
(Defendant’s name) is charged with manslaughter by killing (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of manslaughter, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name) whether or not he intended to kill; and
2) he killed while he was committing or attempting to commit (name felony or misdemeanor)
[Define felony or misdemeanor relied upon.]
MULTIPLE OFFENSE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
(Defendant’s name) is charged with [second] [third] offense possession of marijuana.
To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he knowingly [or intentionally] possessed marijuana; and
2) he was previously convicted of possession of marijuana on the following occasion(s): [describe the convictions alleged in the indictment].
MOLESTATION OF A JUVENILE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the molestation of a juvenile. To convict (defendant’s name) of molestation, you must find:
1) he performed a lewd or indecent act upon [or in the presence of] (victim’s name); and 2) (victim’s name) was under the age of seventeen; and
3) (Victim’s name) was more than two years younger than (defendant’s name); and
4) (defendant’s name) actively desired to arouse or gratify the his own sexual desires [or the sexual desires of (victim’s name); and
5) (defendant’s name) used [force, violence, duress, menace, psychological intimidation, threat of great bodily harm, or used influence by virtue of a position of control or supervision over (victim’s name)].
Lack of knowledge of the age of the child is not a defense.
FIRST DEGREE MURDER
(Defendant’s name) is charged with first degree murder of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of first degree murder, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he defendant actively desire to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
3) [he was committing or attempting to commit of (name the offense).]
[he actively desired to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon a (describe fireman,
peace officer, or public official) engaged in the performance of his lawful duties.]
[he actively desired to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person.]
[he offered or was offered, or gave or received anything of value to kill.]
Attempted 2nd Degree Murder
The State has charged (defendant’s name) with the attempted second degree murder of (victim’s name). Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender actively desired to kill. A person who actively desires to commit a crime and does something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing the crime is guilty of an attempt to commit that crime. It doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, the defendant would have actually committed the crime. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to be an attempt. What (defendant’s name) actively desired must be determined in light of ordinary experience. It is a question of fact which you may infer from the circumstances.
All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act making up the crime, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly advise or get another to commit the crime, are principals and are guilty of the crime charged.
So, to convict (defendant’s name) of attempted second degree murder, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) actively desired to kill (victim’s name); and
2) (defendant’s name) was a principal or did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward killing (victim’s name).
. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted second degree murder, you must consider whether the state proved that he is guilty of attempted manslaughter. Manslaughter occurs when a person kills another in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. If you find that the person’s blood had actually cooled, or that an average person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed, the provocation is not sufficient to make an attempted killing an attempted manslaughter.
To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted manslaughter, you must find that:
1) (defendant’s name) actively desired to kill (victim’s name);
2) In sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, he did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward killing (victim’s name).
[ In sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, (defendant’s name) was lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to kill (victim’s name)] [ In sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, (defendant’s name) was searching for (victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to kill her.]
OR 1) (defendant’s name) actively desired to kill (victim’s name);
2) He acted as a principal with someone who in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection, did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward killing (victim’s name).
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted manslaughter, you must consider whether the state has proved that he is guilty of aggravated battery. Aggravated battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon a person with a dangerous weapon. A dangerous weapon includes any instrument which, in the way used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
So, to convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated battery, you must find that:
1) he intentionally used force or violence upon (victim’s name); and
2) He inflicted the force or violence with a dangerous weapon.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of aggravated battery, you must find him not guilty.
SECOND DEGREE MURDER–FELONY MURDER
(Defendant’s name) is charged with second degree murder by killing (victim’s name) while committing or attempting to commit of (name the felony alleged). To convict (defendant’s name) of second degree murder, you must find that:
1) he defendant killed (victim’s name), whether or not he intended to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; and
2) he killed while committing or attempting to commit (name offense(s) relied upon).
MURDER – SECOND DEGREE – INTENT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the second degree murder of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of second degree murder, you must find that:
1) he killed (victim’s name); and
2) he actively desired to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.
SOLICITATION OF MURDER
(Defendant’s name) is accused of soliciting for murder. To convict (Defendant’s name) of solicitation for Murder, you must find that he intentionally asked, urged or tried to get (name person solicited) to kill (victim’s name) with the active desire to kill or inflict great bodily harm.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) solicited for murdered, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted solicitation for murder. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted solicitation for murder, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to ask, urge or try to get (name person solicited) to kill (victim’s name) with the active desire to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
2) he did or omitted something for the purpose of or tending directly toward soliciting for murder.
Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) attempted to solicit for murder, you must return a verdict of not guilty.
AGGRAVATED OBSTRUCTION OF A HIGHWAY OF COMMERCE
The defendant is charged with aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of aggravated obstruction of a highway of commerce, you must find that:
1) He placed (describe the thing, if alleged) [or performed an act, (describe the act, if alleged)] on (describe the highway of commerce: railway, railroad, navigable waterway, road, highway, thoroughfare or runway of an airport); and
2) he acted intentionally [or in such disregard of others’ interests that it amounts to a gross deviationbelow the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances]; and
3) it was foreseeable that human life might have been endangered.
“Foreseeable” refers to something which a person of average reasonable intelligence and perception ordinarily would anticipate.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
To find (Defendant’s name) guilty for obstruction of justice, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1. He removed evidence from its location of storage or transfer; and
2. He knew that the removal would or may have reasonably affected the potential criminal proceeding against (the potential defendant) for (crime); and
3. He actively desired to distort the results of the criminal investigation into (crime); and
4.The evidence may have reasonably proved relevant to the criminal investigation into (crime).
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of obstruction of justice, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted obstruction of justice.
To convict (defendant’s name)of attempted obstruction of justice, you must find that he actively desired to remove evidence for the purpose distorting the results of the criminal investigation and did something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing obstruction of justice. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt. If you decide that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) of attempted obstruction of justice, you must find him not guilty.
PROOF OF OTHER OFFENSES
Evidence that (defendant’s name) was involved in (a) crime(s) other than the offense(s) for which he is on trial is to be considered only for a limited purpose. That is whether it tends to show [State the purpose for which the court has admitted the evidence; e.g., to show guilty knowledge, absence of mistake or accident, intent, system, motive, or identity.] Remember that the accused is on trial only for (name offense(s) charged). You cannot find him guilty of (name offense charged) merely because he may have committed another crime.
PERJURY
The defendant is charged with perjury in (describe the judicial or other proceeding) by testifying as follows: [Set forth the alleged testimony.] To convict (defendant=s name) of perjury, you must find that:
1) he testified in (describe the proceeding) as follows: [set forth the alleged testimony]; and
2) his testimony was false; and
3) he testified under oath or affirmation; and
4) he knew the statement was false when he made it; and
5) the testimony related to a matter material to the issue or question in controversy; and 6) the testimony was made in [for use in] (describe the judicial proceeding or describe the proceeding before the board or official authorized to take the testimony).
PERJURY–INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (TESTIMONY)
(Defendant’s name) is charged with having committed perjury by testifying as follows in (describe the proceeding): [Set forth the alleged testimony.]and later by testifying as follows in (describe the proceeding): [Set forth the alleged inconsistent testimony.]
To convict (defendant’s name) of perjury, you must find that:
1) he [in (describe the proceeding)] after being sworn [after affirming] as required by law testified as follows: (set forth the testimony); and
2) the testimony was material to the issue or controversy in question in (describe the proceeding); and
3) he [later in (describe the proceeding)] after being sworn [after affirming] testified as follows: (set forth the alleged inconsistent testimony); and
4) the second statement was materially contradictory of or inconsistent with his previous statement and was material to the issue or question in controversy.
(Defendant’s name) is not guilty of perjury in such case if at the time he made each statement he honestly believed the statement to be true.
REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with making repeated phone calls to (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he made repeated telephone calls to (victim); and
2) he made the calls in a way reasonably expected to annoy, torment, abuse, harass, embarrass, or offend.
THREATENING PHONE CALLS
(Defendant’s name) is charged making threatening phone calls. To convict (defendant’s name) of the offense charged, you must find that:
1) he took part in or started a telephone conversation with [call to] (victim); and
2) during that conversation [call] he threatened an illegal [or immoral] act; and
3) he actively desired to coerce, harass, or intimidate [name the person whom the defendant intended to coerce.
PRINCIPALS
All persons who knowingly participate in the planning or execution of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act making up the crime, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly advise or get another to commit the crime, are principals and are guilty of the crime.
PUBLIC BRIBERY--ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE BY OFFICIAL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. It is alleged that (defendant’s name), as (describe the office), [directly or indirectly] accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that (describe the thing of value) was given [offered] with intent to influence the his conduct in relation to his position or duty as (describe the office). To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was (describe the office); and
2) he [directly or indirectly] accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given [offered] with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employment, position or duty as a (describe the office); and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE BY ELECTION OFFICIAL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that (defendant’s name) as an election official at a election directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was an election official at an election; and
2) he directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given [offered] with the intent to influence his conduct as an election official; and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–BRIBERY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that (defendant’s name) gave [or offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name the official) with intent to influence his conduct as (describe his official status). To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he gave [offered to give] directly or indirectly (describe the thing of value) to (name); and
2) (name) was a public officer [employee] serving as (describe his official status);
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) as a (describe his official status); and
4) (describe the thing of value) had apparent, present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE BY GRAND OR PETIT JUROR
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that (defendant’s name), as a juror, directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given [or offered] with the intent to influence his conduct as a juror. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was a juror; and
2) he directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name), knowing that it was given [offered] with intent to influence his conduct as a juror; and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent, present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–BRIBERY OF A JUROR
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that he gave [offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name the juror) with intent to influence his conduct as a juror. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he gave [offered to give] either directly or indirectly (describe the thing of value) to (name); and
2) (name) was a juror; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) as a juror; and
4) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE BY A WITNESS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that he was a witness or person about to be called as a witness upon a trial [or other proceeding (describe the proceeding if alleged)] before (describe the court, board or hearing officer). It further alleges that (defendant’s name) directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name) knowing that it was given with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his duty as a witness. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he was a witness or person about to be called as a witness upon a [trial or other proceeding] (describe the trial or other proceeding if alleged) before a [court, board or hearing officer] (describe the court, board or hearing officer if alleged); and
2) he directly or indirectly accepted [offered to accept] (describe the thing of value) from (name), knowing that it was given [offered] with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position or duty as a witness or person about to be called as a witness; and
3) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective valuE.
PUBLIC BRIBERY–BRIBERY OF A WITNESS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public bribery. The state alleges that he directly or indirectly gave [offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name), and that (name) was a witness or a person about to be called as a witness upon a (trial or other proceeding) before (court, board or officer) with intent to influence his conduct in relationship to his duty as a witness. To convict (defendant’s name) of public bribery, you must find that:
1) he directly or indirectly gave [offered to give] (describe the thing of value) to (name); and
2) (name) was a witness or in a (trial or other proceeding) before (court, board or officer); and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence (name)’s conduct as a witness in a (trial or other proceeding) before (court, board or officer); and
4) (describe the thing of value) had apparent present or prospective value.
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION-JUROR
(Defendant’s name) is charged public intimidation of (name), a juror. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a juror; and
3) (Defendant’s name) actively desired to influence (name)’s conduct in relation to his position or duty as a juror.
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION–INTIMIDATION OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public intimidation of (name), a (describe the status of the person intimidated). To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a (name public office); and
3) he actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his position (employment or duty) as a (describe public office).
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION– SCHOOL BUS OPERATOR
(Defendant’s name) is charged public intimidation of (name), a school bus operator. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a school bus operator; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his [her] position or duty as a school bus operator.
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION–INTIMIDATION OF VOTER OR ELECTION OFFICIAL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with having committed public intimidation of (name), a voter [election official]. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was at the time a voter [election official]; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his duty as a voter [election official].
PUBLIC INTIMIDATION–WITNESS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public intimidation of (name), a witness. To convict (defendant’s name) of public intimidation, you must find that:
1) he used violence, force or threats upon (name); and
2) (name) was a witness at the time; and
3) (defendant’s name) actively desired to influence the conduct of (name) in relation to his duty as a witness.
^PUBLIC PAYROLL FRAUD–ILLEGALLY RECEIVING PAYMENTS–
ILLEGALLY PERMITTING NAME TO APPEAR ON PAYROLL
(Defendant’s name) is charged with public payroll fraud. To convict (defendant’s name) of public payroll fraud, you must find that:
1) he knowingly received (describe the compensation) from (describe the political entity); and
2) the services for which the defendant was paid were not actually performed by him or were grossly inadequate for the compensation he received.
[or] [1) he knowingly permitted his name to be carried on (describe the payroll) for payment from (describe the political entity); and
2) the services for which his name was carried on the payroll actually were not performed by or were grossly inadequate for the payment or compensation received or to be received.]
PURSE SNATCHING
The defendant is charged with purse snatching from (victim). To convict (defendant’s name) of purse snatching, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) he actively desired to permanently deprive the owner of thing taken; and
3) the thing stolen was contained within a purse or wallet which was on (victim)’s person or in her immediate control; and
4) (defendant’s name) used force, intimidation or snatching in order to accomplish the theft.
Something of value must be given the broadest possible construction, including any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
AGGRAVATED RAPE–RESISTANCE OR THREATS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the aggravated rape of (Victim’s name).
To convict (Defendant’s name) of aggravated rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (Victim’s name) without the [her/his] lawful consent; and
2) (Victim’s name) resisted to the utmost but [his] [her] resistance was overcome by force, or s/he was prevented from resisting by threats of great and immediate bodily harm with the apparent power of execution.
Sexual intercourse can take place even though emission does not occur. Any [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual penetration, however slight, is enough.
AGGRAVATED RAPE–MINORS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the aggravated rape of (victim). To convict (defendant’s name) of aggravated rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) was under the age of twelve.
(Defendant’s name)’s lack of knowledge of the (victim’s name)’s age is not a defense. Sexual intercourse can take place even though emission does not occur. Any [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual penetration, however slight, is enough.
FORCIBLE RAPE
(Defendant’s name) is charged with forcible rape of (victim’s name). To convict (Defendant’s name) of forcible rape, if you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name) without he consent; and
2) he prevented (victim’s name) from resisting the intercourse by force or threats of physical violence; and
3) (victim’s name) reasonably believed that resistance would not prevent the rape.
Sexual intercourse can take place even though emission does not occur. Any [anal] [vaginal] sexual penetration, however slight, is enough.
SIMPLE RAPE– DECEPTION
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple rape of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) believes that she is having sexual intercourse with her husband; and
3) (dfendant’s name) intentionally induce her belief by pretense, concealment or deception.
SIMPLE RAPE– VICTIM INTOXICATED
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple rape of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) was incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act of sexual intercourse; and
3) [his] [her] incapacity was produced by an intoxicating agent; and
4) (defendant’s name) knew or should have know of (victim’s name)’s incapacity.
SIMPLE RAPE– VICTIM UNSOUND MIND
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple rape of (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple rape, you must find that:
1) he had [anal] [vaginal] [oral] sexual intercourse with (victim’s name); and
2) (victim’s name) was incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act of sexual intercourse; and
3) [his] [her] incapacity was because of unsoundness of mind; and
4) (defendant’s name) knew or should have know of (victim’s name)’s incapacity.
RECEIVING STOLEN THINGS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with receiving [obtaining or concealing] (name the things) of a value of _____________ dollars under circumstances which indicate that he knew or had good reason to believe that the things had been taken in a [theft] [robbery]. To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he intentionally received [obtained or conceal] (name the things); and
2) the name the things) had been taken [during a robbery or theft;] and
3) he knew or had good reason to believe when he received the (name the things)
that they had been stolen; and
4) the value of the stolen things was (value alleged in the indictment) dollars.
[Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to someone else either without his consent or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations and with the active desire to permanently deprive the person of the thing taken or misappropriated. "Anything of value" includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value.] [Robbery is the taking of anything of value from someone's person or from his immediate control, by use of force or intimidation.]
INCITING TO RIOT RESULTING IN PROPERTY DAMAGE IN EXCESS OF $5000.00
(Defendant=s name) is charged with inciting a riot which resulted in property damage exceeding $5000.00. A “riot” is a public disturbance involving a group
of three or more persons acting together which involves disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, and results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.
To find (defendant name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he deliberately tried to arouse or get another person or persons to create or participate in a riot; and
2) as a result of his effort, more than $5,000.00 of property damage occurred.
INCITING TO RIOT RESULTING IN DEATH
The defendant is charged with inciting a riot which resulted in the death of (victim). A “riot” is a public disturbance by a group of three or more persons acting together which involves disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, and results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property. To convict (defendants name) of inciting a riot which resulted in death, you must find that:
1) he deliberately tried to arouse or get another person or persons to create or
participate in a riot; and
2) as a result of his efforts, (victim) died.
INCITING TO RIOT RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY
(Defendant=s name) is charged with inciting a riot which resulted in serious bodily injury to (victim). A “riot” is a public disturbance involving an group of three or more persons acting together which involves disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, and results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property. To find (defendant=s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he deliberately tried to arouse or get another person or persons to create or participate in a riot; and
2) as a result of his efforts, (victim) received bodily injury, involving unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death.
FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the first degree robbery of (victim).
First degree robbery is the taking of anything of value
from the person of someone or which is in the immediate control of that person when the offender leads the person to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.
To convict (defendant’s namw) of first degree robbery, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (victim)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (victim’s name) to take the thing; and
4) he lead (victim’s name) to reasonably believed that he was armed with a dangerous weapon.
Something of value includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value. A dangerous weapon includes any instrument which is used in way calculated or likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of first degree robbery, you must decide if he is guilty of attempted first degree robbery. A person who has a specific intent to commit a crime and does or omits something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing the crime is guilty of an attempt to commit that crime. It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, the defendant would have actually committed the crime. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt.
Lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime is sufficient to make up an attempt to commit that crime. Searching for the intended victim with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime is sufficient to make up an attempt to commit that crime.
Because an attempt is a lesser grade of the intended offense, the defendant may be convicted of an attempt although it appears at trial that the defendant actually committed the completed offense which he is charged with attempting to commit.
To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted first degree robbery, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to commit first degree robbery; and
2) he did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing first degree robbery;
[2) he lay in wait with a dangerous weapon intending to commit first degree robbery.]
[2) searched for (victim) with a dangerous weapon intending to commit first degree robbery.]
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of attempted first degree robbery, you must decide if he is guilty of simple robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of simple robbery, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in the (victim)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (victim’s name) to accomplish the taking.
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of simple robbery, you must decide if he is guilty of attempted simple robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to commit simple robbery; and
2) he did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven (defendant’s name) guilty of attempted simple robbery, you must find him not guilty.
ARMED ROBBERY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the armed robbery of (Victim’s name). To convict (Defendant’s name) of armed robbery, you must find that:
1) he took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking; and
4) (Defendant’s Name) was armed with a dangerous weapon.
If you decide that the state has proven (Defendant’s name) guilty of armed robbery, you must decide whether the state has proven beyond a doubt that (Defendant’s name) was armed with a firearm.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of armed robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted armed robbery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted armed robbery, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit the crime of armed robbery; and did one of the following things:
1) did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing armed robbery; or
2) laid in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit first degree robbery; or 3) searched for (Victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit armed robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted armed robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of first degree robbery.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of first degree robbery, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking; and
4) (Defendant’s name) led (Victim’s name) to reasonably believed that he was armed with a dangerous weapon.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of first degree robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted first degree robbery. T
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted first degree robbery, you must find that he actively desired to commit first degree robbery; and did one of the following things:
1) did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing first degree robbery; or
2) laid in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit first degree robbery; or 3) searched for (Victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit first degree robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted first degree robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of simple robbery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of simple robbery, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in the (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of simple robbery, you must decide if (Defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted simple robbery. To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit simple robbery and did one of the following things:
1) did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery; or
2) laid in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit simple robbery; or
3) searched for (Victim’s name) with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit simple robbery. If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted simple robbery, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY
(Defendants name) is charged with the attempted armed robbery of (victims name). To convict (Defendants name) of attempted armed robbery, you must find that he actively desired to take something of value from (victims name)’s possession or immediate control while armed with dangerous weapon; and did or omitted something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing armed robbery. Something of value includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
It is doesn’t matter whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually committed armed robbery. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not sufficient to make up an attempt. Because an attempt is a lesser grade of the intended offense, (defendant’s name) may be convicted of an attempt although it appears that he actually committed an armed robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted first degree robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted first degree robbery, you must find that he actively desired to take something of value from (victim’s name)’s person or his/her immediate control while leading him/her to believe that he was armed with a dangerous weapon; and did or omitted something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing first degree robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted first degree robbery, you must decide if (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted simple robbery. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that (defendant’s name) actively desired to take something of value from (victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control, using force or intimidation and did or omitted something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted simple robbery, you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
SIMPLE ROBBERY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with the simple robbery of (victim’s name). In order to convict (Defendant’s name) of simple robbery, you must find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) took something of value belonging to someone else; and
2) the thing taken was in (Victim’s name)’s possession or immediate control when it was taken; and
3) (Defendant’s name) used force or intimidation against (Victim’s name) in order to accomplish the taking.
To convict (Defendant’s name) of attempted simple robbery, you must find that (Defendant’s name) actively desired to commit the crime of simple robbery and did [or omitted] something for the purpose of and tending directly toward committing simple robbery.
If you decide that the state has not proven every part of the crime of attempted simple robbery, you must find (Defendant’s name) not guilty.
SELF-DEFENSE
(Defendant’s name) claims that he acted in self-defense. He does not have to prove it. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
SELF-DEFENSE
You have heard self-defense mentioned in this case. (Defendant’s name) does not have to prove that he acted in self-defense. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. For our purposes self-defense requires that:
1) (Defendant’s name) reasonably believed that he was in immediate danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm; and
2) the killing was necessary to save himself from that danger.
The danger doesn’t have to be real as long as (defendant’s name) reasonably believed that it was. In deciding whether (defendant’s name) reasonably believed that the killing was necessary, you should consider:
(1) the possibility of retreating to avoid the necessity of taking human life;
(2) the excitement and confusion of the occasion;
(3) the possibility of using force less than killing to prevent the danger to himself; and
(4) (defendant’s name)’s knowledge of (victim’s name)’s dangerous character, if any.
A person who starts a fight can’t claim self-defense unless:
1) he withdraws from the conflict; and
2) his withdrawal is in good faith; and
3) he withdraws in a way that notifies the other person that he wants to withdraw and stop the fight.
So, if you find that:
(1) (defendant’s name) killed (victim’s name); and
(2) he believed that he was in danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm; and
(3) he believed the killing was necessary to save himself from the danger; and
(4) his beliefs were reasonable in light of the circumstances; and
(5) he didn’t start the fight or he withdrew in the way I just described. then you must find (defendant’s name) acted in self-defense.
SELF-DEFENSE NON-LETHAL
A person is justified in using force to prevent a forcible offense against him if the force used is reasonable and apparently necessary. If you find that:
1) (Defendant’s name) committed the offense charged to prevent a forcible offense against him; and
2) the amount of force or violence used was reasonable; and
3) the force or violence used was apparently necessary;
then you must find (defendant’s name) not guilty.
SIMPLE BURGLARY
(Defendant’s name) is charged with simple burglary of a structure [vehicle, watercraft] belonging to (victim’s name). To convict (defendant’s name) of simple burglary, you must find that:
1) he entered the structure [vehicle, watercraft] without authority; and
2) he entered actively desiring to take something of value, which belongs to someone else; and
3) he actively desired to permanently deprive the owner of the thing he desired to take.
Something of value includes any conceivable thing of the slightest value.
THEFT
(Defendant’s name) is charged with theft of (identify property alleged to be stolen) of a value of _____ dollars. To find (defendant’s name) guilty as charged, you must find that:
1) he misappropriated or took (identify property), belonging to (name the owner if set forth); and
2) the misappropriation or taking was without the (the owner)’s consent [or was by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations]; and
3) he defendant actively desire to permanently deprive [the owner] of the (identify property); and
4) the property’s value was ______ dollars.
UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OF INHABITED DWELLING
(Defendant’s name) is charged with unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. To convict him you must find that he intentionally entered a home without authorization. If you are not convince beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of unauthorized entry of a inhabited dwelling, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted unauthorized of entry of an inhabited dwelling. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted unauthorized entry of a inhabited dwelling, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to enter a home with authorization; and
2) he did something for the purpose of or tending directly toward entry into that home.
If you are not convince beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of attempted unauthorized entry of a inhabited dwelling, you must consider whether he is guilty of criminal trespass. To convict (defendant’s name) of criminal trespass, you must find that he intentionally entered a structure without authorization.
If you are not convince beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant’s name) is guilty of criminal trespass, you must consider whether he is guilty of attempted criminal trespass. To convict (defendant’s name) of attempted criminal trespass, you must find that:
1) he actively desired to enter a structure without authorization; and
2) he did something for the purpose of or tending directly toward entering that structure.
ILLEGAL USE OF WEAPONS–FIREARMS
(Defendant’s name) is charged with illegal use of a weapon. To convict (defendant’s name) of illegal use of a weapon, you must find that:
1) he discharged a firearm; and
2) he acted intentionally or in such disregard of other’s interests that it amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care we expect of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances;
3) it was foreseeable that the discharge might result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.
“Foreseeable” refers to something which a person of average, reasonable intelligence and perception ordinarily would anticipate.
