ICJI 1255 DEFENSE: ILLEGAL POSSESSION BY A MINOR
INSTRUCTION NO. [You have heard evidence that the defendant (possessed) (served) (dispensed) (beer) (wine) (alcoholic liquor) in the course of the defendant's employment while the defendant was nineteen years of age or older.]
[You have heard evidence that the defendant (possessed) (served) (dispensed) (beer) (wine) (alcoholic liquor) while employed at [describe place defined in IC § 23–942] [a place of employment where (liquor) (beer) (wine) are lawfully present] and while the defendant was nineteen years of age or older.]
[You have heard evidence that the defendant possessed beer [by delivering the beer pursuant to (the order of the defendant's parent) (the defendant's employment)] [or] [when the defendant was in a private residence accompanied by the defendant's (parent) (guardian) and with the consent of the defendant's (parent) (guardian).]
If true, [this] [these] fact[s] constitute[s] a defense to the charge[s] against the defendant. The state has the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that [this] [these] defense[s] do not apply to the defendant. If, after considering all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must find the defendant not guilty.
I.C. §§ 23–949 & 23–1023.
This instruction should be given in conjunction with ICJI 1254 only where there is some evidence to support a defense under either of these Code provisions.
The exceptions contained in Idaho Code § 23-1023 for the offense of unlawful possession of beer also apply to a prosecution for unlawful possession of beer under Idaho Code § 23-949. State v. Maland, 124 Idaho 537, 861 P.2d 107 (Ct. App. 1993). The state is not required to disprove the exceptions as part of its case in chief. The burden is on the defendant to put the exception in issue before the state is required to present evidence negativing it. Id.