INSTRUCTION NO. |. ‘Members of the jury, the evidence in this case has been completed. Ina moment, I will read to you jury instructions that contain the rules of law you must apply to reach your verdict, You will have copies of what I read to take with you to the jury room. But first, I want to mention a few things you need to keep in mind when you are deliberating this case in the jury room. Until you have returned a verdict, you must not do any research about this case or this kind of case using any source, including dictionaries, reference materials, the internet, or any other electronic means. You must not communicate in any way with anyone else about this case or this kind of case until you have returned a verdict in court. This includes your family and friends. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, you must keep it turned off during jury deliberations. Itis my job to decide what rules of law apply to the case. While the attorneys may comment on some of these rules, you must follow the instructions I give you. Even if you disagree with or do not understand the reasons for some of the rules of law, you must follow them. No single instruction describes all the law which must be applied; the instructions must be considered together as a whole. During the trial, you received all of the evidence that you may properly consider in deciding the case, Your decision must be made by applying the rules of law that I give you to the evidence presented at trial. Remember, you must not be influenced by sympathy, bias, or prejudice in reaching your decision. If you decide that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr, Roedema and/or Mr. Rosenblatt is guilty, it will be my job to decide what the punishment will be. In making your decision, you must not consider punishment at all. At times during the trial, attorneys made objections. Do not draw any conclusions from the objections or from my rulings on the objections. These only related to legal questions I had to decide and should not influence your thinking. If told you not to consider a particular statement that was made during the trial, you must not consider it in your deliberations. Finally, you should consider all the evidence in light of your experience in life.INSTRUCTION NO. 2. ‘The charges against Randy Roedema and Jason Rosenblatt are not evidence. The charges against Mr. Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt are just accusations. That fact that Mr. Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt have been accused is not evidence that either of them committed any crime. Randy Roedema and Jason Rosenblatt are charged with committing the following crimes in Adams County, Colorado, on or about August 24, 2019, through August 27, 2019. - Randy Roedema is charged with manslaughter (reckless) and assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury). The charge of manslaughter (reckless) includes the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide. The charge of assault in the second degree includes the lesser offense of assault in the third degree. = Jason Rosenblatt is charged with manslaughter (reckless) and assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury). The charge of manslaughter (reckless) includes the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide. Mr, Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt have pleaded not guilty.INSTRUCTION NO. 3. Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence remains with Mr. Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt throughout the trial and should be given effect by you unless, after considering all the evidence, you are convinced that Mr. Roedema and/or Mr. Rosenblatt is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in this case is upon the prosecution. The prosecution must prove to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of each and every element necessary to constitute the crime charged. This burden requires more than proof that something is highly probable, but it does not require proof with absolute certainty. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. If you are firmly convinced of Mr. Roedema’s and/or Mr. Rosenblatt’s guilt, then the prosecution has proven the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you think there is a real possibility that Mr. Roedema and/or Mr. Rosenblatt is not guilty, then the prosecution has failed to prove the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements of a crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find Mr. Roedema and/or Mr. Rosenblatt guilty of that crime. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of a crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find Mr. Roedema and/or Mr. Rosenblatt not guilty of that crime.INSTRUCTION NO. 4 ‘You are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness and the weight to be given to the witness's testimony. You should carefully consider all of the testimony given and the circumstances under which each witness has testified. For each witness, consider that person’s knowledge, motive, state of mind, demeanor, and manner while testifying. Consider the witness's ability to observe, the strength of that person's memory, and how that person obtained his or her knowledge. Consider any relationship the witness may have to either side of the case, and how each witness might be affected by the verdict. Consider how the testimony of the witness is supported or contradicted by other evidence in the case. You should consider all facts and circumstances shown by the evidence when you evaluate each witness's testimony. You are not bound by the testimony of witnesses who have testified as experts; the credibility of an expert's testimony is to be considered as that of any other witness. ‘The weight you give an expert's testimony is entirely your decision. You may believe all of the testimony of a witness, part of it, or none of it. The number of witnesses testifying for or against a certain fact does not, by itself, prove or disprove that fact.INSTRUCTION NO. 5. Prior statements of witnesses that may have been inconsistent with their testimony at the trial may be considered by the jury. The previous statements may be used for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the witness, and for the purpose of establishing a fact to which their testimony and the prior statement relate.INSTRUCTION NO. ¢ Every Defendant has a constitutional right not to testify. The decision not to testify cannot be used as an inference of guilt and cannot prejudice either Mr. Roedema or Mr. Rosenblatt. It is not evidence, does not prove anything, and must not be considered for any purpose.INSTRUCTION NO. 7 A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Under the law, both are acceptable ways to prove something. Neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Direct evidence is based on first-hand observation of the fact in question. Circumstantial evidence is indirect. It is based on observations of related facts, that may lead you to reach a conclusion about the fact in question.INSTRUCTION NO. } The court admitted certain evidence for a limited purpose. ‘You are again instructed that you cannot consider that evidence except for the limited purpose I told you about when it was admitted.INSTRUCTION NO. 9. In this case, separate offenses are charged against each of the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each count charges a separate and distinct offense, and the evidence and the law applicable to each count should be considered separately, uninfluenced by your decision as to any other count. The fact that you may find Mr. Roedema or Mr. Rosenblatt guilty or not guilty of one of the offenses charged should not control your verdict as to any other offenses charged against Mr. Roedema or Mr. Rosenblatt. Mr, Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt may be found guilty or not guilty of any one or all of the offenses charged. In this case, you must decide separately whether each of the two defendants is guilty or not guilty. If you cannot agree upon a verdict as to both defendants, but do agree as to one of them, you must render a verdict as to the one upon which you do agree. Itis your duty to give separate personal consideration to the case of each individual defendant. When you do so, you should analyze what the evidence in the case shows with respect to that individual. Each defendant is entitled to have his case determined from evidence as to his own acts and culpable state of mind, and any other evidence in this case which may be applicable to him. You must state your finding as to each defendant uninfluenced by your verdict as to the other defendant.INSTRUCTION NO. | The prosecution, Mr. Roedema, and Mr. Rosenblatt have all played enhanced versions of body-camera recordings from the Aurora Police Department. You are instructed that the actual body-camera recordings from the Aurora Police Department are evidence in this case. If you perceive any variations between what you hear and see in the actual recordings versus the enhanced recordings, you must be guided by the actual audio-video recordings from the Aurora Police Department and not the enhanced audio-video recordings. If you cannot determine from the non-enhanced ‘body-camera recordings whether particular words are spoken, who is speaking, or what is depicted in the video, you must disregard the enhanced audio-video insofar as those words, video and recorded statements were concerned. You must keep in mind that what is on the enhanced recording and the original body-camera footage does not necessarily represent or depict what a particular individual at the scene saw or heard during the recorded events. It is for the jury to determine whether the enhanced recordings are an accurate depiction of the original, body-camera footage from the Aurora Police Department.INSTRUCTION NO. ||__ ‘There has been testimony in this case concerning reasonable suspicion for the stop of Mr. McClain. This concept is not for the consideration of the jury and must not be a subject for deliberations. The issues the jury must decide are explained in other jury instructions.INSTRUCTION NO. |2. Each defendant is charged with the crime of manslaughter (reckless). The elements of the crime of manslaughter are: 1. 2. That the defendant, in the State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, up through and including August 27, 2019, recklessly, caused the death of Elijah McClain. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter.INSTRUCTION NO. |3. If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, he may, however, be found guilty of any lesser offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense charged if the evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt of the lesser offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The offense of manslaughter (reckless), as charged in the indictment in this case, necessarily includes the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide. The elements of the crime of criminally negligent homicide are: 1. That the defendant, 2. in the State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, up through and including August 27, 2019, 3. caused the death of Elijah McClain, 4, by conduct amounting to criminal negligence. ‘You should bear in mind that the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of any lesser-included offense that is necessarily included in any offense charged in the indictment; the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements of manslaughter (reckless), you should find the defendant guilty of that offense, and you should so state in your verdict. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove one or more of the elements of manslaughter (reckless), then you must decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements of criminally negligent homicide, you should find the defendant guilty of that offense, and you should so state in your verdict. If you decide the prosecution has failed to prove one or more elements of criminally negligent homicide, you should find the defendant not guilty of that offense, and you should so state in your verdict. While you may find a defendant not guilty of manslaughter (reckless) and criminally negligent homicide, you may not find the defendant guilty of more than one of the following offenses: - Reckless Manslaughter; or - Criminally Negligent HomicideINSTRUCTION NO. |4 Both defendants are charged with the crime of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury). The elements of the crime of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) are: 1. 2 ‘That the defendant, in the State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, with intent, to cause bodily injury to Elijah McClain, caused serious bodily injury to Elijah McClain, and the defendant’s conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in Instruction 24. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury). After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury).INSTRUCTION NO. [5 If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Roedema is guilty of the offense charged, Mr. Roedema may, however, be found guilty of any lesser offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense charged if the evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt of the lesser offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The offense of assault in the second degree, as charged in the indictment in this, case, necessarily includes the lesser offense of assault in the third degree as to Mr. Roedema. The elements of the crime of assault in the third degree are: 1. That Mr. Roedema, 2. in the State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, 3. knowingly or recklessly, 4, caused bodily injury to Elijah McClain, and 5. that the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in Instruction 24. You should bear in mind that the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of any lesser-included offense that is necessarily included in any offense charged in the indictment; the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements of assault in the second degree, you should find the defendant guilty of that offense, and you should so state in your verdict. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove one or more of the elements of assault in the second degree, then you must decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of assault in the third degree. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements of assault in the third degree, you should find the defendant guilty of that offense, and you should so state in your verdict. If you decide the prosecution has failed to prove one or more elements of assault in the third degree, you should find the defendant not guilty of that offense, and you should so state in your verdict.While you may find a defendant not guilty of assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, you may not find Mr. Roedema guilty of more than one of the following offenses: - Assault in the second degree; or = Assault in the third degreeINSTRUCTION NO. Ib. For manslaughter (reckless), a defendant may be either a principal or a complicitor. Complicity is not a separate crime, Rather, it is a legal theory by which one person may be found guilty of a criminal offense that was committed by another person. For the defendant to be found guilty as a complicitor of the crime of manslaughter (reckless), as defined at the end of this Instruction, the prosecution must prove each of the following conditions beyond a reasonable doubt: 1 ‘Another person or persons committed the crime of manslaughter (reckless), as defined at the end of this Instruction, and the defendant, with the desire or the purpose or design to aid, abet, advise, or encourage the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, aided, abetted, advised, or encouraged the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, the defendant was aware of element numbers 1, 2, and 3 of that crime, as defined at the end of this Instruction. For purposes of this Instruction, another person committed the crime of manslaughter (reckless) if the prosecution proves each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. 2. 3. 4, ‘That the other person or persons, in the State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, recklessly, caused the death of Elijah McClain. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of manslaughter (reckless). After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonabledoubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter (reckless).INSTRUCTION NO. |7 ‘The prosecution alleges that Mr. Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt are each guilty of the crime of manslaughter (reckless) as a principal or as a complicitor. You have received separate instructions regarding these two theories of liability: Instruction [2 describes the principal theory of liability, and Instruction _I6 describes the complicity theory of liability. You should consider the two theories separately. Your determination of whether either defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor. Similarly, your determination of whether either defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal. You may find the defendant not guilty of the above-referenced crime under both theories of liability —principal liability and complicity liability. Or you may find the defendant guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal, as a complicitor, or as both a principal and a complicitor.INSTRUCTION NO. \¢ For criminally negligent homicide, a defendant may be either a principal or a complicitor. Complicity is not a separate crime. Rather, it is a legal theory by which one person may be found guilty of a criminal offense that was committed by another person. For the defendant to be found guilty as a complicitor of the crime of criminally negligent homicide, as defined at the end of this Instruction, the prosecution must prove each of the following conditions beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. Another person or persons must have committed the crime of criminally negligent homicide, as defined at the end of this Instruction, and 2. the defendant, with the desire or the purpose or design to aid, abet, advise, or encourage the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, 3. aided, abetted, advised, or encouraged the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, 4, the defendant was aware of elements 1, 2, and 4 of that crime, as defined at the end of this Instruction. For purposes of this Instruction, another person committed the crime of criminally negligent homicide if the prosecution proves each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the other person or persons, 2, inthe State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, 3. caused the death of Elijah McClain, 4, by conduct amounting to criminal negligence. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonabledoubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of criminally negligent homicide.INSTRUCTION NO. 14 The prosecution alleges that Mr. Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt are each guilty of the crime of criminally negligent homicide as a principal or as a complicitor. You have received separate instructions regarding these two theories of liability: Instruction describes the principal theory of liability, and Instruction \ describes the complicity theory of liability. You should consider the two theories separately. Your determination of whether either defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor. Similarly, your determination of whether either defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal. You may find the defendant not guilty of the above-referenced crime under both theories of liability — principal liability and complicity liability. Or you may find the defendant guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal, as a complicitor, or as. both a principal and a complicitor.INSTRUCTION NO. 34 For assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury), a defendant may be either a principal or a complicitor. ‘Complicity is not a separate crime. Rather, it is a legal theory by which one person may be found guilty of a criminal offense that was committed by another person. For the defendant to be found guilty as a complicitor of the crime of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury), as defined at the end of this Instruction, the prosecution must prove each of the following, conditions beyond a reasonable doubt: 1 Another person or persons must have committed the crime of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury), the defendant, with the desire or the purpose or design to aid, abet, advise, or encourage the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, aided, abetted, advised, or encouraged the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, the defendant was aware of element numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of that crime, as defined at the end of this Instruction, and the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in Instruction 24. For purposes of this Instruction, another person committed the crime of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) if the prosecution proves each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1 2. ‘That the other person or persons, in the State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, with intent, to cause bodily injury to Elijah McClain, caused serious bodily injury to Elijah McClain,6. __ and that the other person or persons conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense listed in Instruction 34 After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury). After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury)INSTRUCTION NO.323 The prosecution alleges that Mr. Roedema and Mr. Rosenblatt are each guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) as a principal or as a complicitor. You have received separate instructions regarding these two theories of liability: Instruction [4 describes the principal theory of liability, and Instruction’AQ describes the complicity theory of liability. You should consider the two theories separately. Your determination of whether either defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as. a complicitor. Similarly, your determination of whether either defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal. You may find the defendant not guilty of the above-referenced crime under both theories of liability — principal liability and complicity liability. Or you may find the defendant guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal, as a complicitor, or a8 both a principal and a complicitor.INSTRUCTION NO. AD For assault in the third degree, a defendant may be either a principal or a complicitor. ‘Complicity is not a separate crime. Rather, it is a legal theory by which one person may be found guilty of a criminal offense that was committed by another person, For Mr. Roedema to be found guilty as a complicitor of the crime of assault in the third degree, as defined at the end of this Instruction, the prosecution must prove each of the following conditions beyond a reasonable doubt: 1 Another person or persons must have committed the crime of assault in the third degree, the defendant, with the desire or the purpose or design to aid, abet, advise, or encourage the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, aided, abetted, advised, or encouraged the other person or persons in planning or committing that crime, the defendant was aware of element numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 of that crime, as defined at the end of this Instruction, ~ and the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in Instruction. For purposes of this Instruction, another person committed the crime of assault in the third degree if the prosecution proves each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. That the other person or persons, 2. inthe State of Colorado, in the County of Adams, on or about August 24, 2019, 3. knowingly or recklessly, 4, caused bodily injury to another person, and 5. that the other person or persons conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense listed in Instruction 9.After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of assault in the third degree. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the conditions of complicity liability beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of assault in the third degree.INSTRUCTION NO. 22. The prosecution alleges that Mr. Roedema is guilty of the crime of assault in the third degree as a principal or as a complicitor. You have received separate instructions regarding these two theories of liability: Instruction _[§ describes the principal theory of liability, and Instruction 2Ddescribes the complicity theory of liability. You should consider the two theories separately. Your determination of whether Mr. Roedema is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor. Similarly, your determination of whether Mr. Roedema is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a complicitor should not affect your determination of whether the defendant is guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal. ‘You may find the defendant not guilty of the above-referenced crime under both theories of liability — principal liability and complicity liability. Or you may find the defendant guilty of the above-referenced crime as a principal, as a complicitor, or as both a principal and a complicitor.INSTRUCTION NO. 24 The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense of “peace officer's use of physical force,” as a defense for Mr. Roedema to assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) and assault in the third degree. ‘The evidence presented in this case has raised the affirmative defense of “peace officer’s use of physical force,” as a defense for Mr. Rosenblatt to assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury). The defendant(s), as a peace officer, was legally authorized to use physical force upon another person if 1. heused reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believed it was necessary to make an arrest; or 2. heused reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believed it was necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making, or attempting to make, such an arrest. ‘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 assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) and assault in the third degree. In that event, you must return a verdict of not guilty of that offense. ‘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 concerning the charge of assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) and assault in the third degree must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of that offense,This instruction applies only assault in the second degree (intent to cause bodily injury; causing serious bodily injury) and assault in the third degree.INSTRUCTION NO.25 The evidence presented in this case has raised the question of “peace officer's use of physical force” with respect to manslaughter (reckless) and criminally negligent homicide. The defendant(s), as a peace officer, was legally authorized to use physical force upon another person if: 1, he used reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believed it was necessary to make an arrest; or 2. he used reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believed it was necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making, or attempting to make, such an arrest. You have been instructed that the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of manslaughter (reckless) and criminally negligent homicide, including that the defendant acted recklessly or in a criminally negligent manner. You are further instructed that, with respect to manslaughter (reckless) and criminally negligent homicide, the prosecution does not have an additional burden to disprove peace officer’s use of physical force. You are instructed, though, that a person does not act recklessly or in a criminally negligent manner if his conduct is legally justified as set forth above. This instruction applies only to manslaughter (reckless) and criminally negligent homicide.INSTRUCTION NO. 26 Accrime is committed when the defendant has committed a voluntary act prohibited by law, together with a culpable state of mind. “Voluntary act” means an act performed consciously as a result of effort or determination. Proof of the voluntary act alone is insufficient to prove that the defendant had the required state of mind. The culpable state of mind is as much an element of the crime as the act itself and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. In this case, the applicable states of mind are explained below: - A personacts “intentionally” or “with intent” when his conscious objective is to cause the specific result proscribed by the statute defining the offense. It is immaterial whether or not the result actually occurred. = Aperson acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such a circumstance exists. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result. - Apersonacts “recklessly” when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists. - A person acts “with criminal negligence” when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.INSTRUCTION NO. 2 Certain words or phrases have a particular meaning. The following are the definitions of these words and phrases: “BODILY INJURY” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical or mental condition. © “CONDUCT” means an act or omission and its accompanying state of mind or, where relevant, a series of acts or omissions. “OMISSION” means a failure to perform an act as to which a duty of performance is imposed by law. “SERIOUS BODILY INJURY” means bodily injury which, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time after the actual injury, involves a substantial risk of death, ora substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body.INSTRUCTION NO. 28 In deciding if “serious bodily injury” was caused, you must determine whether the facts of the actual injury or injuries created a substantial risk of death or a substantial risk of protracted loss of impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, rather than the general risk associated with the type(s) of injury caused.INSTRUCTION NO. Bi ‘The word “cause” as used in these instructions means an act or failure to act that in natural and probable sequence produced the claimed injury. It is a cause without which the claimed injury would not have happened. If more than one act or failure to act contributed to the claimed injury, then each act or failure to act may have been a cause of the injury. A cause does not have to be the only cause or the last or nearest cause. It is enough if the act or failure to act joins ina natural and probable way with some other act or failure to act to cause some or all of, the claimed injury. ‘One's conduct is not a cause of another's injuries, however, if, in order to bring about such injuries, it was necessary that his or her conduct combine or join with an intervening cause that also contributed to cause the injuries. To qualify as an intervening cause: (1) the intervening cause must not have been foreseeable; (2) and the intervening cause must be one with which the defendant was in no way connected; (3) and the intervening cause must be one but for which the injury or death would not have occurred. This paragraph (“intervening cause”) applies only to Manslaughter (Reckless), Criminally Negligent Homicide, and Assault in the Second Degree. Simple negligence that contributes to the injury or death of a person is foreseeable and cannot be an intervening cause. Gross negligence is unforeseeable behavior, and it may serve as an intervening cause. Gross negligence is abnormal human behavior that constitutes an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care.INSTRUCTION NO. 30 A person may act in self-defense if he reasonably believes that an officer is using, or is about to use unreasonable or excessive force.INSTRUCTION NO. 3¢ Members of the jury, you may discuss this case only when you are all present and you may only deliberate in the jury room. No juror should attempt to discuss this case with other jurors or anyone else at any other time except when all jurors are in the jury room.INSTRUCTION NO. 34 If there has been or is any news coverage of this case, you must completely disregard it. Your decision in this case must be made solely on the evidence presented at the trial.INSTRUCTION NO. 22. Once you begin your deliberations, if you have a question, your foreperson should write it on a piece of paper, sign it, and give it to the bailiff, who will bring it to me, The Court will then determine the appropriate way to answer the question. However, there may be some questions that, under the law, the Court is not permitted to answer. Please do not speculate about what the answer to your question might have been or why the Court is not able to answer a particular question. Finally, please be sure to keep the original question and response. Do not destroy them as they are part of the official record in this case and must be returned to me when you return the instructions and verdict forms at the end of the case.INSTRUCTION NO. 24 The court's judicial assistant will now escort you to the jury room, where you will select one of your members to be your foreperson. Your foreperson will preside over your deliberations and shall sign any verdict form that you may agree on, according to the rules that I am about to explain. The verdict for each charge must represent the considered judgment of each juror, and it must be unanimous. In other words, all of you must agree to all parts of it. Only one verdict shall be returned signed for each count, for each defendant. The verdict forms and these instructions shall remain in the possession of your foreperson until I ask for them in open court. Upon reaching a verdict, you will inform the bailiff, who in turn will notify me, and you will remain in the jury room until I call you into the courtroom. ‘You will be provided with Y verdict forms. When you have unanimously agreed upon your verdicts you will select the option on each form which reflects your verdict, and the foreperson will sign the verdict forms as I have stated. I will now read to you the verdict forms. You must not draw any inferences based on the order in which I read them. The verdict forms you will receive read as follows: