Maine Jury Instruction Manual
CHAPTER 6 REPRESENTATIVE CRIMINAL INSTRUCTIONS
§ 6-58 Self-Defense—Non-Deadly Force. Instruction.
[Assault, 17-A M.R.S. § 207, Case Example]
In this case [the defendant] is charged with assault and there is an issue of self-defense. The State must prove the elements of the assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt. A person commits an assault if that person:
acting intentionally, knowingly or recklessly;
causes physical injury to another person.
If you find that the State has not proven the elements of the assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find [the defendant] not guilty.
If you find that the State has proven the elements of the assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then decide the self-defense question.
A person is justified in using a reasonable degree of force upon another person in order to defend himself [or a third person] from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary considering the circumstances.
[However, such force is not justifiable if:
• with a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, the defendant provoked the use of force by the other person, or
• the defendant, after being told to leave a home or apartment by a resident or tenant of the home or apartment, refused to leave immediately after being told to leave, or
• the defendant was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the other person, notwithstanding the communication, continues the use or threat of unlawful force.]
Because the evidence generates an issue of whether [the defendant] acted in self-defense, the State must, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, either (1) that the defendant [was] not acting in self-defense; or (2) that the defendant’s beliefs that led to his actions, when viewed in light of the nature and purpose of the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances known to the defendant, were a gross deviation from what a reasonable and prudent person would believe in the same situation.
If you find that the State has not proven either that [the defendant] was not acting in self-defense, or that [the defendant’s] beliefs that led to his actions were a gross deviation from what a reasonable and prudent person would believe in the same situation, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
If you find that the State has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the defendant] committed the assault;
and that the State has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the defendant] was not acting in self-defense, or that [the defendant’s] beliefs that led to his actions were not reasonable, considering what a reasonable and prudent person would believe in the same situation;
then you may find [the defendant] guilty of assault.
[230624]