[Insert instructions 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 his use of force was justified by defense of property.

Defense of One’s Own Personal Property

A person’s use of deadly force against another that constitutes the crime of [offense] is justified by defense of property if the person reasonably believed—

1. the person was in lawful possession of tangible, movable property;
2. another person was unlawfully interfering with that property;
3. the force used was immediately necessary to prevent either—
   1. the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
   2. the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
4. either—
   1. the property could not have been protected or recovered by any other means; or
   2. the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would have exposed the person or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove that defense of property applies to this case. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defense of property does not apply to the defendant’s conduct.

Definitions

Reasonable Belief

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

Deadly Force

“Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the person using it to cause death or serious bodily injury or force that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Application of Law to Facts

To decide the issue of defense of property, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the following elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant was not in lawful possession of tangible, movable property, specifically [specify property]; or
2. [name] was not unlawfully interfering with that property; or
3. the defendant did not reasonably believe the force used was immediately necessary to prevent either—
   1. [name]’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
   2. [name], who was fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property; or
4. the defendant did not reasonably believe either—
   1. the property could not have been protected or recovered by any other means; or
   2. the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would have exposed the defendant or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1, 2, 3, or 4 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, 2, 3, or 4 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, either element 1, 2, 3, or 4 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.]