Defense says they object to the complete definition of a "deadly weapon" under the law, and argues that because the firearms are specified in the charges they don't need to discuss other kinds
Definition of bodily injury will be included
Instruction #13 -- judge says he liked the defense version, not the prosecution
Format names the charge, lists the victims, explains the count. Groups them together in that way
Prosecution agrees to the proposed format, defense too. But defense asks to add "plain language" to differentiate the NG and NGRI decisions
Instruction #14 is similar, but relates to the "extreme indifference" counts
Universal malice is not defined by statute. Judge says it was defined by caselaw
Instruction #15 relates to attempted murder after deliberation
#16 is attemped murder extreme indifference
Judge says he doesn't yet have instruction for the incendiary device
Instruction #17 deals with affirmative defense of insanity
Defense's version has variations from the model, Samour says
Discussing if the instruction should be singular or plural "act/acts" in the instruction about insanity
Decision: Judge will say "each act"
Here's an answer to a question someone on YouTube wrote: In Colorado there are various kinds of "1st degree murder" they are: after deliberation, felony murder, extreme indifference and "execution base upon perjury" So what matters for us: Extreme indifference is about "any innocent person" while after deliberation is about the planning and intent
Defense says they've added paragraph reminding the jury that the prosecution must "disprove" their insanity argument
Nelson: "This case is about mental state so we think it is important to highlight for the jury that they can consider mental state"
Prosecution arguing the defense additions are redundant.
Judge will include paragraphs included in the law, but not the redundant ones the prosecution objected to
Next is instruction #18, which he says he's already given to the jury. It is the affirmative defense of insanity's description of "distinguishing right from wrong"
"incapable of distinguishing right from wrong" is not defined by Colorado statute. So Judge wrote his instruction based on a note in the model instructions