OUJI-CR 5-128
THE DEFENSE OF EXEMPTION
It is not unlawful to offer/sell any security in this State if the security/ transaction is exempt from registration requirements. Evidence has been introduced of an exemption from registration as a defense to the charge that the defendant committed the crime of the offering/sale of unregistered securities.
The following offerings/sales of securities are exempted from registration:
[Set Out the Exemption(s) Listed in 71 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 401(a) or (b) That Is/Are Claimed by the Defendant].
If, after considering all the evidence in this case, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the security allegedly offered/sold by the defendant was exempt from registration, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
______________________________
Statutory Authority: 71 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 401.
Committee Comments
In Armstrong v. State, 811 P.2d 593, 596 (Okl.Cr. 1991), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that an instruction placing the burden of proving an exemption from registration on the defendant was a correct statement of the law. See also 71 O.S. Supp.1996, § 401(e); State v. Hoephner, 574 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Okl. Cr. 1978) (exemption from registration is affirmative defense); Nelson v. State, 355 P.2d 413, 419 (Okl.Cr. 1960) (same). The Committee reviewed § 401(e) and Armstrong, supra, and it concluded that this instruction is consistent with the statutory requirement that the defendant has the burden of raising the defense of exemption. The Committee decided that the State, retaining its burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would then have the burden of overcoming that defense.