[Insert instruction for underlying offense.]

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the [number] elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant is not guilty because of the defense based on harm to livestock animals or crops.

Defense of Protection of Livestock Animals or Crops

It is a defense to cruelty to nonlivestock animals that the person engaged in this conduct [when/after] the animal was discovered on the person’s property in the act of or after injuring or killing the person’s livestock animals or damaging the person’s crops and the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove that the defense based on harm to livestock animals or crops applies to this case. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense does not apply.

Definitions

Livestock Animal

“Livestock animal” means—

1. cattle, sheep, swine, goats, ratites, or poultry commonly raised for human consumption;
2. a horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny;
3. native or nonnative hoofstock raised under agriculture practices; or
4. native or nonnative fowl commonly raised under agricultural practices.

Application of Law to Facts

To decide the issue of defense of protection of livestock animals or crops, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that either—

1. the defendant did not discover [insert specifics, e.g., Dog # 1], the animal, on the defendant’s property [in the act of/after] [injuring or killing the defendant’s livestock animals/damaging the defendant’s crops]; or
2. the defendant did not kill or injure [insert specifics, e.g., Dog # 1] at the time of this discovery.

You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of cruelty to nonlivestock animals, and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in response to the injury or killing of the defendant’s livestock animals or crops, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]