[Insert instructions for underlying offense. Include the following if the evidence raises issues about whether the defendant used the force constituting the offense to resist an arrest or search being made by someone the defendant knew was a peace officer and about whether excessive force was involved in making the arrest or search.]

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 his use of force was justified by self-defense.

Self-Defense

A person’s use of force against another that constitutes the crime of [offense] is justified by self-defense when the person reasonably believed the degree of force used was immediately necessary to protect the person against the other’s use [or attempted use] of unlawful force.

This does not apply, and a person’s use of force is a criminal offense, if the person used the force to resist an arrest or search being made by someone known by the defendant to be a peace officer [or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at the officer’s direction]. This is the case even if the arrest or search was unlawful.

However, use of force by a person against another known to be a peace officer and to resist an arrest or search being made by the peace officer is not a criminal offense if both—

1. before the person offered any resistance, the peace officer used or attempted to use greater force than was necessary to make the arrest or search; and
2. the person reasonably believed the force he used was immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s use or attempted use of greater force than was necessary.

Self-defense does not cover conduct in response to verbal provocation alone. The defendant must have reasonably believed the other person had done more than verbally provoke the defendant.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove self-defense. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense does not apply to the defendant’s conduct.

Definitions

Peace Officer

A [insert appropriate position, e.g., police officer of the city of Dallas, Texas] is a peace officer.

Reasonable Belief

“Reasonable belief” means a belief that an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.

Application of Law to Facts

To decide the issue of self-defense, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that both—

1. the defendant’s use of force was to resist an arrest or search being made by [name of peace officer], whom the defendant knew was a peace officer; and
2. either—
   1. [name of peace officer] did not, before the defendant offered any resistance, use or attempt to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; or
   2. the defendant did not reasonably believe the force he used was immediately necessary to protect himself against [name of peace officer]’s use or attempted use of greater force than was necessary to make the arrest or search.

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

If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the two elements 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 [insert specific offense], and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, both elements 1 and 2 listed above, 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.]