If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and imperfect (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) depends on whether the defendant’s belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable.

The defendant acted in imperfect (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1.      The defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing a person.

2.      The defendant intended to kill when (he/she) acted.

3.      The defendant believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/
                      <insert name of third party>) was in imminent
danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.

AND

4.      The defendant believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger.

BUT

5.      The defendant’s beliefs were unreasonable.

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have actually believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else).

In evaluating the defendant’s beliefs, consider all the