Arkansas Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
CHAPTER 7 JUSTIFICATION

AMCI 2d 706 JUSTIFICATION—USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PREMISES

(Defendant(s)) assert(s) as a defense to the charge of(offense(s)) that [he was] [they were] defending [] (describe premises) [or] [a vehicle].

[A person may use non-deadly physical force to defend (premises) (or) (a vehicle) only if:

he is in lawful possession or control of the (premises) (or) (vehicle); and

he reasonably believes that it is necessary to use physical force to terminate the (commission) (or) (attempted commission) of a criminal trespass by another person; and,

the extent and necessity of the force used would appear to be necessary to an ordinary, prudent man under the same or similar circumstances.]

[A person may use deadly physical force to defend (premises) (or) (a vehicle) only if:

(a) (he is in lawful possession or control of the [premises] [or] [vehicle]; and

he reasonably believes that it is necessary to use deadly physical force to prevent the commission of [arson] [or] [burglary] by a trespasser; and the extent and necessity of the force used would appear to be necessary to an ordinary, prudent man under the same or similar circumstances.)

(b) (he is in lawful possession or control of the [premises] [or] [vehicle]; and

he reasonably believes another person is [committing or about to commit (felony) with force or violence] [using or about to use unlawful deadly force]; and

the extent and necessity of the force used would appear to be necessary to an ordinary, prudent man under the same or similar circumstances.)]

[However, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows that the use of deadly force could have been avoided with complete safety:

(a) (by retreating.) (But a person is not required to retreat if he is [in his dwelling and was not the original aggressor] [a law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty] [assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer].)

(b) (by surrendering the possession of property to a person who has a lawful right to it.)]

(Defendant(s)), in asserting this defense, [is] [are] required only to raise a reasonable doubt in your minds. Consequently, if you believe that this defense has been shown to exist, or if the evidence leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to [his] [their] guilt of(offense(s)), then you must find [him] [them] not guilty.

[However, if you find that (defendant) ((recklessly (or) (negligently) formed the belief that (he) (she) was justified in acting in (self defense) (defense of a third party)) (or) ((recklessly) (or) (negligently) employed an excessive degree of physical force), justification is not a defense to (charge or lesser charge with recklessness or negligence as a culpable mental state)]

Definitions

“Occupiable structure.”—means a vehicle, building, or other structure

[where any person lives or carries on a business or other calling]; [or]

[where people assemble for purposes of (business) (government) (education) (religion) (entertainment) (public transportation)]; [or]

[which is customarily used for overnight accommodation of persons]

whether or not a person is actually present.

A person commits “criminal trespass” if he purposely enters or remains unlawfully in or upon a vehicle or the premises of another person.

A person commits “arson” if he starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of destroying or otherwise damaging [an occupiable structure of another person] [or] [any property of another person if he thereby negligently creates a risk of death or serious physical injury to any person] [or] [a vital public facility.]

A person commits “burglary” if he enters or remains unlawfully in an occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing therein any offense punishable by imprisonment.

“Premises.”—means occupiable structures and any real property.

“Recklessly.”—A person acts recklessly with respect to the results of his conduct when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the results will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation.

The term “negligently” as used in this criminal case means more than it does in civil cases. To prove negligence in a criminal case the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the death would occur. The risk must have been of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involved a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed in his situation.

 

[230619]