Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
1
of
36
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN
CIRCUIT
COURT
KENOSHA
COUNTY
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN
,
Plaintiff
-VS
INSTRUCTIONS
TO
THE
JURY
FILED
Case
No.
20
CF
983
KYLE
H.
RITTENHOUSE
,
NOV
15
2021
Defendant
REBECCA
MATOSKA
-
MENTINK
CLERK
OF
CIRCUIT
COURT
OPENING
INSTRUCTIONS
Members
of
the
jury
:
The
court
will
now
instruct
you
upon
the
principles
of
law
which
you
are
to
follow
in
considering
the
evidence
and
in
reaching
your
verdict
.
It
is
your
to
follow
all
of
these
instructions
.
Regardless
of
any
opinion
you
may
have
about
what
the
law
is
or
ought
to
be
,
you
must
base
your
verdict
on
the
law
I
give
you
in
these
instructions
.
Apply
that
law
to
the
facts
in
the
case
which
have
been
properly
proven
by
the
evidence
.
Consider
only
the
evidence
received
during
this
trial
and
the
law
as
given
to
you
by
these
instructions
and
from
these
alone
,
guided
by
your
soundest
reason
and
best
judgment
,
reach
your
verdict
.
If
any
member
of
the
jury
has
an
impression
of
my
opinion
as
to
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
or
not
guilty
,
disregard
that
impression
entirely
and
decide
the
issues
of
fact
solely
as
you
view
the
evidence
.
You
,
the
jury
are
the
sole
judges
of
the
facts
,
and
the
court
is
the
judge
of
the
law
only
.
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
2
of
36
INFORMATION
NOT
EVIDENCE
An
Information
is
nothing
more
than
a
written
,
formal
accusation
against
a
defendant
charging
the
commission
of
one
or
more
criminal
acts
.
You
are
not
to
consider
it
as
evidence
against
the
defendant
in
any
way
.
It
does
not
raise
any
inference
of
guilt
.
THE
CHARGES
The
Information
contains
six
counts
of
charged
unlawful
behavior
against
the
defendant
and
to
each
,
he
has
entered
a
plea
of
Guilty
,
which
is
a
demand
that
the
state
prove
every
element
of
each
charge
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
.
PRIVILEGE
:
SELF
-
DEFENSE
State's
Burden
of
Proof
Self
-
defense
is
an
issue
in
this
case
.
As
to
each
of
counts
1
through
5 ,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
did
not
act
lawfully
in
self
-
defense
.
General
Principles
of
Self
Defense
The
law
of
self
-
defense
allows
the
defendant
to
threaten
or
intentionally
use
force
against
another
only
if
:
the
defendant
believed
that
there
was
an
actual
or
imminent
unlawful
interference
with
the
defendant's
person
;
and
the
defendant
believed
that
the
amount
of
force
the
defendant
used
or
threatened
to
use
was
necessary
to
prevent
or
terminate
the
interference
;
and
2
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
3
of
36
the
defendant's
beliefs
were
reasonable
.
The
defendant
may
intentionally
use
force
which
is
intended
or
likely
to
cause
death
or
great
bodily
harm
only
if
the
defendant
reasonably
believed
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
Determining
Whether
Beliefs
Were
Reasonable
A
belief
may
be
reasonable
even
though
mistaken
.
In
determining
whether
the
defendant's
beliefs
were
reasonable
,
the
standard
is
what
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
and
prudence
would
have
believed
in
the
defendant's
position
under
the
circumstances
that
existed
at
the
time
of
the
leged
offense
.
The
reasonableness
of
the
defendant's
beliefs
must
be
determined
from
the
standpoint
of
the
defendant
at
the
time
of
the
defendant's
acts
and
not
from
the
viewpoint
of
the
jury
now
.
There
is
no
duty
to
retreat
.
However
,
in
determining
whether
the
defendant
reasonably
believed
the
amount
of
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
or
terminate
the
interference
,
you
may
consider
whether
the
defendant
had
the
opportunity
to
retreat
with
safety
,
whether
such
retreat
was
feasible
,
and
whether
the
defendant
knew
of
the
opportunity
to
retreat
.
Provocation
You
should
also
consider
whether
the
defendant
provoked
the
attack
. A
person
who
engages
in
unlawful
conduct
of
a
type
likely
to
provoke
others
to
attack
,
and
who
does
provoke
an
attack
,
is
not
allowed
to
use
or
threaten
force
in
self
-
defense
against
that
attack
.
However
,
if
the
attack
which
follows
causes
the
person
reasonably
to
believe
that
he
is
in
imminent
danger
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
,
he
may
lawfully
act
in
self
-
defense
.
But
the
person
may
not
use
or
threaten
force
intended
or
likely
to
cause
death
unless
he
reasonably
3
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
4
of
36
believes
he
has
exhausted
every
other
reasonable
means
to
escape
from
or
otherwise
avoid
death
or
great
bodily
harm
.
CRIMES
REQUIRING
INTENT
Counts
4
and
5
require
intent
to
kill
.
Meaning
of
"
Intent
to
Kill
"
"
Intent
to
kill
"
means
that
the
defendant
had
the
mental
purpose
to
take
the
life
of
another
human
being
or
was
aware
that
his
conduct
was
practically
certain
to
cause
the
death
of
another
human
being
When
May
Intent
Exist
?
While
the
law
requires
that
the
defendant
acted
with
intent
to
kill
,
it
does
not
require
that
the
intent
exist
for
any
particular
length
of
before
the
act
is
committed
.
The
act
need
not
be
brooded
over
,
considered
,
or
reflected
for
a
week
,
a
day
,
an
hour
,
or
even
for
a
minute
.
a
There
need
not
be
any
appreciable
time
between
the
formation
of
the
intent
and
the
act
.
The
intent
to
kill
may
be
formed
at
any
time
before
the
act
,
including
the
instant
before
the
act
,
and
must
continue
to
exist
at
the
time
the
act
.
Deciding
About
Intent
You
cannot
look
into
a
person's
to
find
intent
.
Intent
to
kill
must
be
found
,
if
found
at
all
,
from
the
defendant's
acts
,
words
,
and
statements
,
if
any
,
and
from
all
the
facts
and
circumstances
in
this
case
bearing
upon
intent
.
Intent
and
Motive
Intent
should
not
be
confused
with
motive
.
While
proof
of
intent
is
necessary
to
a
conviction
,
proof
of
motive
is
not
.
"
Motive
"
refers
to
a
person's
reason
for
doing
something
.
4
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
5
of
36
While
motive
may
be
shown
as
a
circumstance
to
aid
in
establishing
the
guilt
of
a
defendant
,
the
State
is
not
required
to
prove
motive
on
the
part
of
a
defendant
in
order
to
convict
.
Evidence
of
a
motive
does
not
by
itself
establish
guilt
.
You
should
give
it
the
weight
you
believe
it
deserves
under
all
of
the
circumstances
.
COUNT
1 :
FIRST
DEGREE
RECKLESS
HOMICIDE
940.02
( 1)
The
first
count
of
the
Information
charges
that
on
or
about
Tuesday
,
August
25
,
2020
,
in
the
City
of
Kenosha
,
Kenosha
County
,
Wisconsin
,
the
defendant
recklessly
caused
the
death
of
Joseph
D.
Rosenbaum
,
under
circumstances
which
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
contrary
to
sec
.
940.02
( 1),
939.50
(
3
) (
b
),
1) (
b
)
Wis
.
Stats
Statutory
Definition
of
the
Crime
First
degree
reckless
homicide
,
as
defined
in
940.02
( 1)
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
is
committed
by
one
who
recklessly
causes
the
death
of
another
human
being
under
circumstances
that
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
the
Crime
That
the
State
Must
Prove
1.
The
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
.
"
Cause
"
means
that
the
defendant's
act
was
a
substantial
factor
in
producing
the
death
.
2.
The
defendant
caused
the
death
by
criminally
reckless
conduct
.
"
Criminally
reckless
conduct
"
means
:
5
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
6
of
36
the
conduct
created
a
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
another
person
;
and
the
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
was
unreasonable
and
substantial
;
and
the
defendant
was
aware
that
his
conduct
created
the
unreasonable
and
substantial
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
.
3.
The
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
In
determining
whether
the
circumstances
of
the
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
consider
these
factors
:
what
the
defendant
was
doing
why
the
defendant
was
engaged
in
that
conduct
;
how
dangerous
the
conduct
was
;
how
obvious
the
danger
was
;
whether
the
conduct
showed
any
regard
for
life
;
and
,
all
other
facts
and
circumstances
relating
to
the
conduct
If
,
as
to
the
first
count
,
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
all
three
elements
of
this
have
been
proved
,
and
that
the
defendant
was
not
acting
lawfully
in
self
defense
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
.
COUNTS
2 & 3
FIRST
DEGREE
RECKLESSLY
ENDANGERING
SAFETY
-
941.30
(1 )
Counts
2
&
3
of
the
Information
accuse
the
defendant
of
the
crime
of
Recklessly
Endangering
Safety
.
Although
the
elements
of
each
of
these
crimes
are
identical
,
the
rules
of
self
defense
which
apply
to
them
are
not
.
The
second
count
of
the
Information
charges
that
on
or
about
Tuesday
,
August
25
,
2020
,
in
the
City
of
Kenosha
,
Kenosha
County
,
Wisconsin
,
the
defendant
6
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
7
of
36
recklessly
endangered
the
safety
of
Richard
McGinnis
,
under
circumstances
which
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
contrary
to
sec
.
941.30
( 1),
939.50
(
3
)
( ),
939.63
(
1)(b)
Wis
.
Stats
.
The
third
count
of
the
Information
charges
that
on
or
about
Tuesday
,
August
25
,
2020
,
the
City
of
Kenosha
,
Kenosha
County
,
Wisconsin
,
the
defendant
recklessly
endangered
the
safety
of
an
unknown
male
,
under
circumstances
which
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
contrary
to
sec
.
941.30
( 1),
939.50
(
3
)
(
),
939.63
( 1)(b)
Wis
.
Stats
.
Statutory
Definition
of
the
Crime
First
degree
recklessly
endangering
safety
,
as
defined
in
941.30
(1)
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
is
committed
by
one
who
recklessly
endangers
the
safety
of
another
human
being
under
circumstances
that
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
State's
Burden
of
Proof
W
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
recklessly
endangering
safety
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
the
Crime
That
the
State
Must
Prove
the
conduct
created
a
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
another
person
;
a
and
•
the
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
was
unreasonable
and
substantial
;
and
the
defendant
was
aware
that
his
conduct
created
the
unreasonable
and
substantial
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
.
7
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
8
of
36
“
Great
bodily
harm
means
injury
which
creates
a
substantial
risk
of
death
,
or
which
causes
serious
permanent
disfigurement
,
or
which
causes
a
permanent
or
protracted
loss
or
impairment
of
the
function
of
any
bodily
member
or
organ
,
or
other
serious
bodily
injury
.
3.
The
circumstances
of
the
defendant’s
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
In
determining
whether
the
circumstances
of
the
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
consider
these
factors
:
what
the
defendant
was
doing
;
why
the
defendant
was
engaged
in
that
conduct
;
how
dangerous
the
conduct
was
;
how
obvious
the
danger
was
;
whether
the
conduct
showed
any
regard
for
life
and
,
all
other
facts
and
circumstances
relating
to
the
conduct
.
Special
Rule
of
Self
-
Defense
as
To
Richard
McGinnis
There
is
evidence
in
this
case
that
the
defendant
was
acting
in
self
-
defense
as
to
Joseph
defendant's
conduct
as
to
McGinnis
was
criminally
reckless
conduct
which
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
but
the
defendant
does
not
have
a
privilege
of
self
-
defense
as
to
Richard
McGinnis
.
The
law
of
self
-
defense
allows
the
defendant
to
threaten
or
intentionally
use
force
against
another
only
if
:
·
the
defendant
believed
that
there
was
an
actual
or
imminent
unlawful
interference
with
the
defendant's
person
;
and
,
8
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
9
of
36
the
defendant
believed
that
the
amount
of
force
he
used
or
threatened
to
use
was
necessary
to
prevent
or
terminate
the
interference
;
and
,
the
defendant's
beliefs
were
reasonable
.
The
defendant
may
intentionally
use
force
which
is
intended
or
likely
to
cause
death
or
great
bodily
harm
only
the
defendant
reasonably
believed
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
Determining
Whether
Beliefs
Were
Reasonable
A
belief
may
be
reasonable
even
though
mistaken
.
In
determining
whether
the
defendant's
beliefs
were
reasonable
,
the
standard
is
what
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
and
prudence
would
have
believed
in
the
defendant's
position
under
the
circumstances
that
existed
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
offense
.
The
reasonableness
of
the
defendant's
beliefs
must
be
determined
from
the
standpoint
of
the
defendant
at
the
time
of
his
acts
and
not
from
the
viewpoint
of
the
jury
now
.
You
should
consider
the
evidence
relating
to
self
-
defense
along
with
all
the
other
evidence
respect
to
Joseph
Rosenbaum
,
his
conduct
did
not
create
an
unreasonable
risk
to
another
.
The
burden
is
on
the
state
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
did
not
act
lawfully
in
self
-
defense
.
And
,
you
must
be
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
from
all
the
evidence
in
the
case
that
the
risk
was
unreasonable
.
You
should
consider
the
evidence
relating
to
self
-
defense
in
deciding
whether
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
The
burden
is
-
on
the
state
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
did
not
act
lawfully
in
self
9
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
10
of
36
defense
.
And
,
you
must
be
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
from
all
the
evidence
in
the
case
that
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
Jury's
Decision
If
,
as
to
each
of
these
counts
,
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
each
element
of
this
crime
have
been
proved
,
and
that
the
defendant
was
not
acting
lawfully
in
self
defense
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
endangerment
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
.
COUNT
4 :
FIRST
DEGREE
INTENTIONAL
HOMICIDE
:
SELF
-
DEFENSE
:
SECOND
DEGREE
INTENTIONAL
HOMICIDE
:
FIRST
DEGREE
RECKLESS
-
HOMICIDE
-
940.01
(
2
)(
b
)
;
940.05
;
940.02
(
1
)
The
fourth
count
of
the
Information
charges
that
on
or
about
,
August
25
,
2020
,
in
the
City
of
Kenosha
,
Kenosha
County
,
Wisconsin
,
the
defendant
cause
the
death
of
Anthony
M.
Huber
,
with
intent
to
kill
that
person
,
contrary
to
sec
.
940.01
(1) (
a
),
939.50
(
3
)(
a
)
,
939.63
( 1)(
b
)
Wis
.
Stats
Crimes
To
Consider
The
defendant
in
this
case
is
charged
with
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
and
you
must
first
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
that
offense
.
If
you
are
not
satisfied
that
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
you
must
consider
whether
or
not
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
or
first
degree
reckless
homicide
which
are
less
serious
degrees
of
criminal
homicide
.
Intentional
and
Reckless
Homicide
The
crimes
referred
to
as
first
and
second
degree
intentional
homicide
and
first
degree
reckless
homicide
are
different
degrees
of
homicide
.
Homicide
is
the
taking
of
the
life
of
another
human
being
.
The
degree
of
homicide
defined
by
the
law
depends
on
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
particular
case
.
10
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
11
of
36
While
the
law
separates
homicides
into
different
types
and
degrees
,
there
are
certain
elements
which
are
common
to
each
crime
.
Both
intentional
and
reckless
homicide
require
that
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
.
First
and
second
degree
intentional
homicide
require
the
State
to
prove
the
additional
fact
that
the
defendant
acted
with
the
intent
to
kill
.
First
degree
reckless
homicide
require
that
the
defendant
acted
recklessly
and
that
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
It
will
also
be
important
for
you
to
consider
the
privilege
of
self
-
defense
in
deciding
which
crime
,
if
any
,
the
defendant
has
committed
.
Self
-
Defense
The
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
provides
that
a
person
is
privileged
to
intentionally
use
force
against
another
for
the
purpose
of
preventing
or
terminating
what
he
reasonably
believes
to
be
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
by
the
other
person
.
However
,
he
may
intentionally
use
only
such
force
as
he
reasonably
believes
is
necessary
to
prevent
or
terminate
the
interference
.
He
may
not
intentionally
use
force
which
is
intended
or
likely
to
cause
death
unless
he
reasonably
believes
that
such
force
is
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
As
applied
to
this
case
,
the
effect
of
the
law
of
self
-
defense
is
:
The
defendant
is
not
guilty
of
any
homicide
offense
if
the
defendant
reasonably
believed
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
,
and
reasonably
believed
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
..
11
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
12
of
36
•
The
defendant
is
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
if
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
with
the
intent
to
kill
and
actually
believed
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
,
but
the
belief
or
the
amount
of
force
used
was
unreasonable
.
•
The
defendant
is
guilty
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
if
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
with
the
intent
to
kill
and
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
The
defendant
is
guilty
of
first
degree
kless
homicide
if
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
the
other
by
criminally
reckless
conduct
and
the
circumstances
of
the
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
•
You
will
be
asked
to
consider
the
privilege
of
self
-
defense
in
deciding
whether
on
whether
the
defendant
acted
self
-
defense
.
Instead
,
you
will
be
asked
to
determine
whether
the
State
has
established
the
necessary
facts
to
justify
a
finding
of
guilty
for
first
or
second
degree
intentional
homicide
or
for
first
degree
reckless
homicide
.
If
the
State
does
not
satisfy
you
that
those
facts
are
established
by
the
evidence
,
you
will
be
instructed
to
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
The
facts
necessary
to
constitute
each
crime
will
now
be
defined
for
you
in
greater
detail
.
Statutory
Definition
of
First
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
12
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
13
of
36
First
degree
intentional
homicide
,
as
defined
in
940.01
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
is
committed
by
one
who
causes
the
death
of
another
human
being
with
the
intent
to
kill
that
person
or
another
.
In
this
case
,
first
degree
intentional
homicide
also
requires
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
State's
Burden
of
Proof
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
First
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
That
the
State
Must
Prove
1.
The
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
.
"
Cause
"
means
that
the
defendant's
act
was
substantial
factor
in
producing
the
death
.
2.
The
defendant
with
the
intent
to
kill
the
other
.
3.
The
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
Actual
Belief
That
The
Force
Used
Was
Necessary
The
third
element
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
requires
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
This
requires
the
State
to
prove
either
:
1)
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
he
was
in
imminent
danger
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
;
or
13
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
14
of
36
2
)
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
danger
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
When
first
degree
intentional
homicide
is
considered
,
the
reasonableness
of
the
defendant's
belief
is
not
an
issue
.
You
are
to
be
concerned
only
with
what
the
defendant
actually
believed
.
Whether
these
beliefs
are
reasonable
is
important
only
if
you
later
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Jury's
Decision
If
,
as
to
the
fourth
count
,
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
with
the
intent
to
kill
and
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
not
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
and
you
must
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
as
defined
in
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
which
is
a
lesser
included
offense
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Make
Every
Reasonable
Effort
To
Agree
You
should
make
every
reasonable
effort
to
agree
unanimously
on
the
charge
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
before
considering
the
offense
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
However
,
if
after
full
and
complete
consideration
of
the
evidence
,
you
conclude
that
further
deliberation
would
not
result
in
unanimous
agreement
on
the
charge
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
you
should
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Second
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
14
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
15
of
36
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
Elements
of
Second
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
That
the
State
Must
Prove
The
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
.
2.
The
defendant
acted
with
the
intent
to
kill
another
human
being
.
3.
The
defendant
not
reasonably
believe
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
or
did
not
reasonably
believe
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
You
have
already
been
instructed
on
the
definitions
of
"
causing
death
"
and
"
with
intent
to
kill
.
"
The
same
definitions
apply
to
your
consideration
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Reasonable
Belief
That
The
Force
Used
Was
Necessary
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
This
requires
that
the
State
prove
any
one
of
the
following
:
1
that
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant
would
not
have
believed
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
;
or
2
)
that
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant
would
not
have
believed
he
was
in
danger
of
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
;
or
3
)
that
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant
would
not
have
believed
that
the
amount
of
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
15
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
16
of
36
The
reasonableness
of
the
defendant's
belief
must
be
determined
from
the
standpoint
of
the
defendant
at
the
time
of
his
acts
not
from
the
viewpoint
of
the
jury
now
.
The
standard
is
what
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
and
prudence
have
believed
in
the
position
of
the
defendant
under
the
circumstances
existing
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
offense
.
Jury
Decision
If
,
as
to
the
fourth
count
,
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
with
the
intent
to
kill
and
did
not
reasonably
believe
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
or
did
not
reasonably
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
not
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
and
you
should
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
,
in
violation
of
940.02
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
which
is
also
a
lesser
included
offense
of
first
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Make
Every
Reasonable
Effort
To
Agree
You
should
make
every
reasonable
effort
to
agree
unanimously
on
the
charge
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
before
considering
the
offense
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
.
However
,
if
after
full
and
complete
consideration
of
the
evidence
,
you
conclude
that
further
deliberation
would
not
result
in
unanimous
agreement
on
the
charge
of
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
you
should
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
.
Statutory
Definition
of
First
Degree
Reckless
Homicide
16
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
17
of
36
First
degree
reckless
,
as
defined
in
940.02
( 1)
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
is
committed
by
one
who
recklessly
causes
the
death
of
another
human
being
under
circumstances
that
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
State's
Burden
Of
Proof
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
the
Crime
That
the
State
Must
Prove
1.
The
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
human
being
,
"
Cause
"
means
that
the
defendant's
act
was
a
substantial
factor
in
producing
the
death
.
2.
The
defendant
caused
the
death
by
criminally
reckless
conduct
.
"
Criminally
reckless
conduct
"
means
:
the
conduct
created
a
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
another
person
;
and
the
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
was
unreasonable
and
substantial
;
and
the
defendant
was
aware
that
his
conduct
created
the
unreasonable
and
substantial
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
.
You
should
consider
the
evidence
relating
to
self
-
defense
in
deciding
whether
the
defendant's
conduct
created
an
unreasonable
risk
to
another
.
If
the
defendant
was
acting
lawfully
in
self
-
defense
,
his
conduct
did
not
create
an
unreasonable
risk
to
another
.
The
burden
is
on
the
state
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
did
not
act
17
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
18
of
36
lawfully
in
self
-
defense
.
And
,
you
must
be
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
from
all
the
evidence
in
the
case
that
the
risk
was
unreasonable
.
3.
The
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
In
determining
whether
the
circumstances
of
the
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
consider
these
factors
:
what
the
defendant
was
doing
;
why
the
defendant
was
engaged
in
that
conduct
;
how
dangerous
the
conduct
was
;
how
obvious
the
danger
was
;
whether
the
conduct
showed
any
regard
for
life
;
and
,
all
other
facts
circumstances
relating
to
the
conduct
.
You
should
consider
the
evidence
relating
to
self
-
defense
in
deciding
whether
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
The
burden
is
on
the
state
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
did
not
act
lawfully
in
self
-
defense
.
And
,
you
must
be
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
from
all
the
evidence
in
the
case
that
the
circumstances
of
Consider
also
the
defendant's
conduct
after
the
death
to
the
extent
that
it
helps
you
decide
whether
or
not
the
circumstances
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
at
the
time
the
death
occurred
Jury's
Decision
If
,
as
to
the
fourth
count
,
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
caused
the
death
of
another
human
being
by
criminally
reckless
conduct
and
that
the
circumstances
of
the
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
and
that
the
defendant's
conduct
was
not
privileged
under
the
law
of
self
defense
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
homicide
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
.
18
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
19
of
36
COUNT
5 :
ATTEMPTED
FIRST
DEGREE
INTENTIONAL
HOMICIDE
:
SELF
-
DEFENSE
:
ATTEMPTED
SECOND
DEGREE
INTENTIONAL
HOMICIDE
:
RECKLESSLY
ENDANGERING
940.01
(
2
) (
b
);
940.05
;
The
fifth
count
of
the
Information
charges
that
on
or
about
Tuesday
,
August
25
,
2020
,
in
the
City
of
Kenosha
,
Kenosha
County
,
Wisconsin
,
the
defendant
attempted
to
cause
the
death
of
Gaige
P.
Grosskreutz
,
with
intent
to
kill
that
person
,
contrary
to
sec
.
940.01
( 1)
(
a
),
939.50
(
3
)(a),
939.32
,
939.63
( 1)(b)
Wis
.
Stats
.
Crimes
To
Consider
The
defendant
in
this
case
is
charged
with
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
and
you
must
first
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
that
offense
.
If
you
are
not
satisfied
that
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
you
must
consider
The
crimes
referred
to
as
attempted
first
and
second
degree
intentional
homicide
are
different
degrees
of
homicide
Homicide
is
the
taking
of
the
life
of
another
human
being
.
The
degree
of
attempted
homicide
defined
by
the
law
depends
on
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
particular
case
.
While
the
law
separates
attempted
intentional
homicides
into
two
degrees
,
there
are
certain
elements
which
are
common
to
each
crime
.
Both
attempted
first
and
second
degree
intentional
homicide
require
that
:
the
defendant
intended
to
kill
another
person
;
and
the
defendant
did
acts
toward
the
commission
of
that
crime
which
indicate
unequivocally
,
under
all
the
circumstances
,
that
he
had
formed
that
intent
and
would
19
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
20
of
36
have
caused
the
death
of
the
other
except
for
the
intervention
of
another
person
or
some
other
extraneous
factor
.
It
will
also
be
important
for
you
to
consider
the
privilege
of
self
-
defense
in
deciding
which
crime
,
if
any
,
the
defendant
has
committed
.
Self
-
Defense
The
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
provides
that
a
person
is
privileged
to
intentionally
use
force
against
another
under
the
following
circumstances
:
force
is
used
for
the
purpose
of
preventing
or
terminating
what
the
person
reasonably
believes
to
be
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
by
the
other
person
;
and
,
the
person
uses
only
the
amount
of
force
that
he
reasonably
believes
is
necessary
to
prevent
or
terminate
the
interference
;
and
,
the
person
may
not
intentionally
use
force
which
is
intended
or
likely
to
cause
death
unless
he
reasonably
believes
that
such
force
is
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
If
you
find
that
the
elements
of
attempted
first
or
second
degree
intentional
homicide
have
been
proved
in
this
case
,
the
effect
of
the
law
of
self
-
defense
is
as
:
The
defendant
is
not
guilty
of
either
attempted
first
or
second
degree
intentional
homicide
if
the
defendant
:
( 1
)
reasonably
believed
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
,
and
(2)
reasonably
believed
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
20
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
21
of
36
The
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
if
the
defendant
actually
believed
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
,
but
the
belief
or
the
amount
of
force
used
was
unreasonable
.
The
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
if
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
him
.
Because
the
law
provides
that
it
is
the
State's
burden
to
prove
all
the
facts
necessary
to
constitute
a
crime
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
,
you
will
not
be
asked
to
make
a
separate
finding
on
whether
the
defendant
acted
in
self
-
defense
.
Instead
,
you
will
be
asked
to
determine
whether
the
State
has
proved
the
necessary
facts
to
justify
a
finding
of
guilty
for
attempted
first
or
second
degree
intentional
homicide
If
the
State
does
not
satisfy
you
that
those
facts
are
established
by
the
evidence
,
you
will
be
instructed
to
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
.
The
elements
of
each
crime
will
now
be
defined
for
you
in
greater
detail
.
Attempted
First
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
Attempted
First
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
That
the
State
Must
Prove
1.
The
defendant
intended
to
kill
another
human
being
.
21
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
22
of
36
2
The
defendant
did
acts
which
demonstrate
unequivocally
,
under
all
the
circumstances
,
that
he
had
formed
that
intent
and
would
have
caused
the
death
of
the
other
except
for
the
intervention
of
another
person
or
some
other
extraneous
factor
.
"
Unequivocally
"
means
that
no
other
inference
or
conclusion
can
reasonably
and
fairly
be
drawn
from
the
defendant's
acts
,
under
the
circumstances
.
"
Another
person
"
means
anyone
but
the
defendant
and
may
include
the
intended
victim
An
"
extraneous
factor
"
is
something
outside
the
knowledge
of
the
defendant
or
outside
the
defendant's
control
.
3.
The
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
Actual
Belief
That
The
Force
Used
Was
Necessary
The
third
element
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
requires
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
.
This
requires
the
State
to
prove
either
:
1)
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
he
was
in
imminent
danger
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
;
or
2
)
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
danger
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
When
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
is
considered
,
the
reasonableness
of
the
defendant's
belief
is
not
an
issue
.
You
are
to
be
concerned
only
with
what
the
defendant
actually
believed
.
Whether
these
beliefs
are
reasonable
is
important
only
if
you
later
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
22
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
23
of
36
Jury's
Decision
If
,
as
to
the
fifth
count
,
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
intended
to
kill
another
human
being
,
and
that
the
defendant's
acts
demonstrated
unequivocally
that
the
defendant
intended
to
kill
and
would
have
killed
the
other
except
for
the
intervention
of
another
person
or
some
other
extraneous
factor
,
and
that
the
defendant
did
not
actually
believe
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
not
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
and
you
must
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
as
defined
in
940.05
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
which
is
a
lesser
included
offense
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Make
Every
Reasonable
Effort
To
Agree
You
should
make
every
reasonable
effort
to
agree
unanimously
on
the
charge
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
before
considering
the
offense
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
However
,
if
after
and
complete
consideration
of
the
evidence
,
you
conclude
that
further
deliberation
would
not
result
in
unanimous
agreement
on
the
charge
of
attempted
first
degree
intentional
homicide
,
you
should
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Attempted
Second
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
Attempted
Second
Degree
Intentional
Homicide
23
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
24
of
36
That
the
State
Must
Prove
1.
The
defendant
intended
to
kill
another
.
2.
The
defendant
did
acts
which
demonstrate
unequivocally
,
under
all
the
circumstances
,
that
he
had
formed
that
intent
and
would
have
caused
the
death
of
the
other
except
for
the
intervention
of
another
person
or
some
other
extraneous
factor
.
3.
The
defendant
did
not
reasonably
believe
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
or
did
not
reasonably
believe
that
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
You
have
already
been
instructed
on
the
definitions
of
to
kill
,
unequivocally
,
another
person
,
”
and
“
extraneous
factor
.”
The
same
definitions
apply
to
your
consideration
of
attempted
second
degree
intentional
homicide
of
or
did
not
reasonably
believe
the
force
used
was
necessary
to
one
of
the
following
:
1)
that
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant
would
not
have
believed
that
he
was
preventing
or
terminating
an
unlawful
interference
with
his
person
;
or
2
)
that
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant
would
not
have
believed
he
was
in
danger
of
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
;
or
24
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
25
of
36
3
)
that
a
reasonable
person
in
the
circumstances
of
the
defendant
would
not
have
believed
that
the
amount
of
force
used
was
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
himself
.
The
reasonableness
of
the
defendant's
belief
must
be
determined
from
the
standpoint
of
the
defendant
at
the
time
of
his
acts
and
not
from
the
viewpoint
of
the
jury
now
.
The
standard
is
what
a
person
of
ordinary
intelligence
and
prudence
would
have
believed
in
the
position
of
the
defendant
under
the
circumstances
existing
at
the
time
of
the
alleged
offense
.
Jury's
Decision
If
,
as
to
the
fifth
count
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
intended
to
kill
and
that
the
defendant's
acts
demonstrated
unequivocally
that
the
defendant
intended
to
kill
and
would
have
killed
another
except
for
the
intervention
of
another
person
or
some
other
extraneous
factor
,
and
that
the
defendant
did
not
reasonably
believe
that
he
was
degree
intentional
homicide
.
e
doubt
that
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
attempted
first
or
second
degree
intentional
homicide
,
you
must
consider
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
of
the
lesser
included
crime
of
first
degree
recklessly
endangering
safety
,
as
defined
in
940.30
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
which
is
a
lesser
included
offense
of
attempted
first
and
second
degree
intentional
homicide
.
Statutory
Definition
of
the
Crime
25
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
26
of
36
First
degree
recklessly
endangering
safety
,
as
defined
in
941.30
( 1)
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
Wisconsin
,
is
committed
by
one
who
recklessly
endangers
the
safety
of
another
human
being
under
circumstances
that
show
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
State's
Burden
of
Proof
Before
you
may
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
recklessly
endangering
safety
,
the
State
must
prove
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
following
three
elements
were
present
.
Elements
of
the
Crime
That
the
State
Must
Prove
1.
The
defendant
endangered
the
safety
of
another
human
being
.
2.
The
defendant
endangered
the
safety
of
another
by
criminally
reckless
conduct
.
“
Criminally
reckless
conduct
means
:
conduct
created
a
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
to
another
person
;
and
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
was
unreasonable
and
substantial
;
and
the
defendant
was
aware
that
his
conduct
created
the
unreasonable
and
substantial
risk
of
death
or
great
bodily
harm
.
“
Great
bodily
harm
”
means
injury
which
creates
a
substantial
risk
of
death
,
or
which
causes
serious
permanent
disfigurement
,
or
which
causes
a
permanent
or
protracted
loss
or
impairment
of
the
function
of
any
bodily
member
or
organ
,
or
other
serious
bodily
injury
.
3.
The
circumstances
of
the
defendant's
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
.
In
determining
whether
the
circumstances
of
the
conduct
showed
utter
disregard
for
human
life
,
consider
these
factors
:
what
the
defendant
was
doing
;
why
the
defendant
26
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
27
of
36
was
engaged
in
that
conduct
;
how
dangerous
the
conduct
was
;
how
obvious
the
danger
was
;
whether
the
conduct
showed
any
regard
for
life
;
and
,
all
other
facts
and
circumstances
relating
to
the
conduct
.
If
you
are
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
each
element
of
first
degree
reckless
endangerment
has
been
proven
and
that
the
defendant
was
not
acting
lawfully
in
self
defense
,
you
should
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
first
degree
reckless
endangerment
,
as
submitted
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
find
the
defendant
not
guilty
.
You
are
not
in
any
event
,
to
find
the
defendant
guilty
of
more
than
one
of
the
foregoing
offenses
COUNTS
1
THROUGH
5
QUESTION
:
USING
OR
POSSESSING
A
DANGEROUS
WEAPON
939.63
The
Information
alleges
not
only
that
the
defendant
committed
the
crimes
charged
in
counts
questions
:
"
Did
the
defendant
commit
the
crime
while
using
a
dangerous
weapon
?
"
"
Dangerous
weapon
"
means
any
firearm
,
whether
loaded
or
unloaded
. A
firearm
is
a
weapon
that
acts
by
force
of
gunpowder
.
Before
you
may
answer
this
question
"
yes
,"
you
must
be
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
committed
the
crime
while
using
a
dangerous
weapon
.
If
you
are
not
so
satisfied
,
you
must
answer
the
question
"
no
.
"
27
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
28
of
36
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
AND
PRESUMPTION
OF
INNOCENCE
In
reaching
your
verdict
,
examine
the
evidence
with
care
and
caution
.
Act
with
judgment
,
reason
,
and
prudence
.
Presumption
of
Innocence
Defendants
are
not
required
to
prove
their
innocence
.
The
law
presumes
every
person
charged
with
the
commission
of
an
offense
to
be
innocent
.
This
presumption
requires
a
finding
of
not
guilty
unless
in
your
deliberations
,
you
find
it
is
overcome
by
evidence
which
satisfies
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
is
guilty
.
State's
Burden
of
Proof
The
burden
of
establishing
every
fact
necessary
to
constitute
guilt
is
upon
the
State
.
Before
you
can
return
a
verdict
of
guilty
,
the
evidence
must
satisfy
you
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
the
defendant
is
guilty
.
If
you
can
reconcile
the
evidence
upon
any
reasonable
hypothesis
consistent
with
the
defendant's
innocence
,
you
must
do
so
and
return
a
verdict
of
not
guilty
.
Meaning
of
Reasonable
Doubt
The
term
"
reasonable
doubt
"
means
a
doubt
based
upon
reason
and
common
sense
.
It
is
a
doubt
for
which
a
reason
can
be
given
,
arising
from
a
fair
and
rational
consideration
of
the
evidence
or
lack
of
evidence
.
It
means
such
a
doubt
as
would
cause
a
person
of
ordinary
prudence
to
pause
or
hesitate
when
called
upon
to
act
in
the
most
important
affairs
of
life
.
A
reasonable
doubt
is
not
a
doubt
which
is
based
on
mere
guesswork
or
speculation
. A
doubt
which
arises
merely
from
sympathy
or
from
fear
to
return
a
verdict
of
guilt
is
not
a
28
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
29
of
36
reasonable
doubt
. A
reasonable
doubt
is
not
a
doubt
such
as
may
be
used
to
escape
the
responsibility
of
a
decision
.
Examine
the
evidence
and
search
for
the
truth
,
giving
the
defendant
the
benefit
of
every
reasonable
doubt
.
EVIDENCE
DEFINED
Evidence
is
:
First
,
the
sworn
testimony
of
witnesses
,
both
on
direct
and
cross
-
examination
,
regardless
of
who
called
the
witness
.
Second
,
the
exhibits
the
court
has
received
,
whether
or
not
an
exhibit
goes
to
the
jury
room
.
Third
,
any
facts
to
which
the
lawyers
have
agreed
or
stipulated
or
which
the
court
has
directed
you
to
find
.
Anything
you
may
have
seen
or
heard
outside
the
courtroom
is
not
evidence
.
You
are
to
decide
the
case
solely
on
the
evidence
offered
and
received
trial
.
IMPROPER
QUESTIONS
Disregard
entirely
any
question
that
the
court
did
not
allow
to
be
answered
.
Do
not
guess
at
what
the
witness
'
answer
might
have
been
.
If
the
question
itself
suggested
that
certain
information
might
be
true
,
ignore
the
suggestion
and
do
not
consider
it
as
evidence
.
OBJECTIONS
OF
COUNSEL
;
EVIDENCERECEIVED
OVER
OBJECTION
Attorneys
for
each
side
have
the
right
and
the
duty
to
object
to
what
they
consider
are
improper
questions
asked
of
witnesses
and
to
the
admission
of
other
evidence
which
they
believe
29
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
30
of
36
is
not
properly
admissible
.
You
should
not
draw
any
conclusions
from
the
fact
an
objection
was
made
.
By
allowing
testimony
or
other
evidence
to
be
received
over
the
objection
of
counsel
,
the
court
is
not
indicating
any
opinion
about
the
evidence
.
You
jurors
are
the
judges
of
the
credibility
of
the
witnesses
and
the
weight
of
the
evidence
.
CHARGES
DISPOSED
OF
DURING
TRIAL
At
the
beginning
of
the
trial
, I
described
the
charges
against
the
defendant
.
Count
7
charging
a
Curfew
violation
has
been
disposed
of
and
is
no
longer
part
of
this
case
The
other
counts
remain
.
Do
not
guess
about
or
concern
yourselves
with
the
reasons
for
this
disposition
.
It
must
not
affect
your
consideration
of
the
charges
that
remain
.
Do
not
consider
evidence
that
related
only
to
the
count
that
has
been
disposed
of
.
STRICKEN
TESTIMONY
During
the
trial
,
the
court
has
ordered
certain
testimony
to
be
stricken
.
Disregard
all
stricken
testimony
.
An
exhibit
becomes
evidence
only
when
received
by
the
court
.
An
exhibit
marked
for
identification
and
not
received
is
not
evidence
.
An
exhibit
received
is
evidence
,
whether
or
not
it
goes
to
the
jury
room
.
REMARKS
OF
COUNSEL
30
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
31
of
36
Remarks
of
the
attorneys
are
not
evidence
.
If
the
remarks
suggested
certain
facts
not
in
evidence
,
disregard
the
suggestion
.
CLOSING
ARGUMENTS
OF
COUNSEL
Consider
carefully
closing
arguments
of
the
attorneys
,
but
their
arguments
and
conclusions
and
opinions
are
not
evidence
.
Draw
your
own
conclusions
from
the
evidence
,
and
decide
upon
your
verdict
according
to
the
evidence
,
under
the
instructions
given
you
by
the
court
.
JUDICIALLY
NOTICED
FACTS
The
court
has
taken
judicial
notice
of
certain
facts
and
you
are
directed
to
accept
them
as
true
.
STATEMENTS
ATTRIBUTED
TO
THE
DEFENDANT
The
State
has
introduced
evidence
of
statements
which
it
claim
were
made
by
the
defendant
.
It
is
for
you
to
determine
how
much
weight
,
if
any
,
to
give
to
each
statement
.
In
evaluating
each
statement
,
you
must
determine
three
things
:
whether
the
statement
was
actually
made
by
the
defendant
.
Only
so
much
of
a
statement
as
was
actually
made
by
a
person
may
be
considered
as
evidence
.
whether
the
statement
was
accurately
restated
here
at
trial
.
whether
the
statement
or
any
part
of
it
ought
to
be
believed
.
31
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
32
of
36
You
should
consider
the
facts
and
circumstances
surrounding
the
making
of
each
statement
,
along
with
all
the
other
evidence
in
determining
how
much
weight
,
if
any
,
the
statement
deserves
WEIGHT
OF
EVIDENCE
The
weight
of
evidence
does
not
depend
on
the
number
of
witnesses
on
each
side
.
You
may
find
that
the
testimony
of
one
witness
is
entitled
to
greater
weight
that
of
another
witness
or
even
of
several
other
witnesses
.
JUROR'S
KNOWLEDGE
In
weighing
the
evidence
,
you
may
take
into
account
matters
of
your
common
knowledge
and
your
observations
and
experience
in
the
affairs
of
life
.
EXPERT
OPINION
TESTIMONY
GENERAL
Ordinarily
,
a
witness
may
testify
only
about
facts
.
However
, a
witness
with
specialized
knowledge
in
a
particular
field
may
give
an
opinion
in
that
field
.
In
determining
the
weight
to
give
to
this
opinion
,
you
should
consider
:
the
qualifications
and
credibility
of
the
witness
;
the
facts
upon
which
the
opinion
is
based
;
and
the
reasons
given
for
the
opinion
.
Opinion
evidence
was
received
to
help
you
reach
a
conclusion
.
However
,
you
are
not
bound
by
any
witness's
opinion
.
32
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
33
of
36
CREDIBILITY
OF
WITNESSES
It
is
the
duty
of
the
jury
to
scrutinize
and
to
weigh
the
testimony
of
witnesses
and
to
determine
the
effect
of
the
evidence
as
a
whole
.
You
are
the
sole
judges
of
the
credibility
,
that
is
,
the
believability
,
of
the
witnesses
and
of
the
weight
to
be
given
to
their
testimony
.
In
determining
the
credibility
of
each
witness
and
the
weight
you
give
to
the
testimony
of
each
witness
,
consider
these
factors
:
whether
the
witness
has
an
interest
or
lack
of
interest
in
the
result
of
this
trial
;
•
the
witness
'
conduct
appearance
,
and
demeanor
on
the
witness
stand
;
clearness
or
lack
of
clearness
of
the
witness
'
recollections
:
•
the
opportunity
the
witness
had
for
observing
and
for
knowing
the
matters
the
witness
W
testified
about
;
reasonableness
of
the
witness
testimony
;
the
apparent
intelligence
of
the
witness
bias
or
prejudice
,
if
any
has
been
shown
;
falsifying
testimony
;
and
all
other
facts
and
circumstances
during
the
trial
which
tend
either
to
support
or
to
discredit
the
testimony
.
Then
give
to
the
testimony
of
each
witness
the
weight
you
believe
it
should
receive
.
The
defendant
has
testified
in
this
case
,
and
you
should
not
discredit
the
testimony
just
because
the
defendant
is
charged
with
a
crime
.
Use
the
same
factors
to
determine
the
credibility
and
weight
of
the
defendant's
testimony
that
you
use
to
evaluate
the
testimony
of
any
other
witness
.
33
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
34
of
36
There
is
no
magic
way
for
you
to
evaluate
the
testimony
;
instead
,
you
should
use
your
common
sense
and
experience
.
In
everyday
life
,
you
determine
for
yourselves
the
reliability
of
things
people
say
to
you
.
You
should
do
the
same
thing
here
.
IMPEACHMENT
OF
WITNESS
:
PRIOR
CONVICTION
Evidence
has
been
received
that
two
of
the
witnesses
in
this
trial
have
been
convicted
of
crime
.
This
evidence
was
received
solely
because
it
bears
upon
the
witness's
character
for
truthfulness
.
It
must
not
be
used
for
any
other
purpose
.
CLOSING
INSTRUCTION
Now
,
members
of
the
jury
,
the
time
has
now
come
when
the
great
burden
of
reaching
a
just
,
fair
,
and
conscientious
decision
of
this
case
is
to
be
thrown
wholly
upon
you
,
the
jurors
,
selected
for
this
most
important
duty
.
You
will
not
be
swayed
by
sympathy
,
prejudice
,
passion
or
believe
to
be
my
opinions
on
the
guilt
or
innocence
of
the
defendant
.
You
will
disregard
the
claims
or
opinions
of
any
other
person
or
media
or
social
networking
site
.
You
will
pay
no
heed
to
the
opinions
of
anyone
,
even
the
President
of
the
United
States
or
of
the
President
before
him
.
The
Founders
of
Our
Country
gave
you
,
and
you
alone
,
the
power
,
and
the
duty
,
to
decide
this
9+
case
based
solely
on
the
evidence
presented
in
this
court
.
You
will
fearlessly
keep
faith
with
those
who
have
entrusted
to
you
the
fair
rendition
of
justice
and
the
protection
of
our
freedom
.
You
be
very
careful
and
deliberate
in
weighing
the
evidence
. I
charge
you
to
keep
your
duty
steadfastly
in
mind
and
,
as
upright
Americans
,
render
just
and
true
verdicts
.
34
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
35
of
36
You
are
to
decide
only
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
or
not
guilty
of
the
offenses
charged
.
Any
consequences
of
your
verdict
are
matters
for
the
court
alone
to
decide
and
must
not
affect
your
deliberations
.
VERDICTS
SUBMITTED
:
SEPARATE
VERDICT
ON
EACH
COUNT
REQUIRED
It
is
for
you
to
determine
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty
or
not
guilty
of
each
of
the
offenses
charged
.
You
must
make
a
finding
as
to
each
count
of
the
Information
.
Each
count
charges
a
separate
crime
,
and
you
must
consider
each
one
separately
.
Your
verdict
for
the
crime
charged
in
one
count
must
not
affect
your
verdict
on
any
other
count
.
UNANIMOUS
VERDICT
AND
SELECTION
OF
PRESIDING
JUROR
jurors
must
deliberations
.
The
presiding
juror's
vote
is
entitled
to
no
greater
weight
than
the
vote
of
any
other
juror
If
you
need
to
communicate
with
the
court
while
you
are
deliberating
,
send
a
note
through
the
bailiff
,
signed
by
the
presiding
juror
.
To
have
a
complete
record
of
this
trial
,
it
is
important
that
you
communicate
with
the
court
only
by
a
written
note
.
If
you
have
questions
,
the
court
will
talk
with
the
attorneys
before
answering
so
it
may
take
some
time
.
You
should
continue
your
deliberations
while
you
wait
for
an
answer
.
The
court
will
answer
any
questions
in
writing
or
orally
here
in
open
court
.
35
Case
2020CF000983
Document
341
Scanned
11-15-2021
Page
36
of
36
When
you
have
agreed
upon
your
verdict
,
have
it
signed
and
dated
by
the
person
you
have
selected
to
preside
.
After
you
have
reached
a
verdict
:
•
The
presiding
juror
will
notify
the
bailiff
that
a
verdict
has
been
reached
.
•
Everyone
will
return
to
the
courtroom
.
The
verdict
will
be
read
into
the
record
in
open
court
.
•
The
court
may
ask
each
of
you
if
you
agree
with
the
verdict
.
36
