[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 Property of a Third Person

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

1. the other was unlawfully interfering with the tangible, movable property of a third individual;
2. the other’s unlawful interference with that property constituted attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to that property; and
3. either—
   1. the third individual requested his protection of the property; or
   2. the person had a legal duty to protect the third individual’s property; or
   3. the third individual was the person’s spouse, parent, or child, resided with the person, or was under the person’s care.

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.

Definition

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 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 did not reasonably believe [name] was unlawfully interfering with the tangible, movable property of a third individual, specifically [specify property]; or
2. the defendant did not reasonably believe [name]’s unlawful interference with that property constituted an attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to that property; or
3. either—
   1. the defendant did not reasonably believe that the third individual requested the defendant’s protection of the property; or
   2. the defendant did not reasonably believe that he had a legal duty to protect the third individual’s property; or
   3. the defendant did not reasonably believe that the third individual was the defendant’s spouse, parent, or child, resided with the defendant, or was under the defendant’s care.

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