A person is justified in destroying/injuring an animal if:

First, he/she acted to defend himself/herself/(another person)/(his/her home/ property) against harm threatened by the animal;

Second, the animal's actions led him/her to reasonably believe that it would inflict the harm;

Third, the destruction/injury was reasonable in view of the seriousness of the harm threatened;

Fourth, he/she reasonably believed that the harm could only be prevented by immediate destruction/injury of the animal; and

Fifth, the kind and amount of force used was reasonably proportionate to the kind and amount of danger presented by the animal.

It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in destroying/injuring an animal. If you find that the State has failed to sustain that burden, then the defendant must be found not guilty.

Committee Comments

This instruction is derived from Grizzle v. State, 707 P.2d 1210, 1213 (Okl. Cr. 1985).