Colorado Jury Instructions, Criminal (2023)
CHAPTER H: DEFENSES
SECTION I: DEFENSES THAT ARE GENERALLY APPLICABLE
H:18.5: RENDERING EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO AN AT-RISK PERSON OR AN ANIMAL IN A LOCKED VEHICLE
The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense of “rendering emergency assistance to an at-risk person or an animal in a locked vehicle,” as a defense to [criminal mischief] [criminal trespass] [criminal tampering involving property].
The defendant’s conduct was legally authorized if:
1. he [she] forcibly entered a locked vehicle, and
2. the vehicle was not a law enforcement vehicle, and
3. an at-risk person or an animal was present in the vehicle and the defendant had a reasonable belief that the at-risk person or the animal was in imminent danger of death or suffering serious bodily injury, and
4. the defendant determined that the vehicle was locked and that forcible entry was necessary, and
5. the defendant made a reasonable effort to locate the owner or operator of the vehicle and documented the color, make, model, license plate number, and location of the vehicle, and
6. the defendant contacted a local law enforcement agency, the fire department, animal control, or a 911 operator prior to forcibly entering the vehicle, and did not interfere with, hinder, or fail to obey a lawful order of any person duly empowered with police authority or other first responder duties who was discharging or apparently discharging his or her duties, and
7. the defendant used no more force than he [she] believed was reasonably necessary, and
[8. the defendant remained with the at-risk person or the animal, reasonably close to the vehicle, until a law enforcement officer, emergency medical service provider, animal control officer, or other first responder arrived at the scene.]
[8. the defendant left the scene before a law enforcement officer, emergency medical service provider, animal control officer, or other first responder arrived at the scene, and
9. it was necessary for the defendant to leave, and
10. before leaving, the defendant placed a notice on the windshield of the vehicle that included his [her] name and contact information and the name and contact information of the location, if any, to which the defendant took the at-risk person or the animal when he [she] left the scene, and
11. contacted law enforcement, animal control, or other first responder to advise them of his [her] name and contact information, that he [she] was leaving the scene, and the name and contact information of the location, if any, to which the defendant was taking the at-risk person or the animal.]
The prosecution has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the above numbered conditions.
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to meet this burden of proof, then the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense, which is an essential element of [criminal mischief] [criminal trespass] [criminal tampering involving property]. In that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of [that] [those] offense[s].
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has met this burden of proof, then the prosecution has proved the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by this defense. In that event, your verdict[s] concerning the charge[s] of [criminal mischief] [criminal trespass] [criminal tampering involving property] must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of [that] [those] offense[s].
[230531]