408.03	MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT
	  	NEGATING CULPABLE MENTAL STATE
	(If you do not find and believe from the evidence that the defendant lacked responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect, as submitted in Instruction No. _____, you) (You) may consider evidence that the defendant had or did not have a mental disease or defect in determining whether the defendant had the state of mind required to be guilty of [name of offense].
	(The term "mental disease or defect" means any mental abnormality regardless of its medical label, origin, or source. (However, it does not include (an abnormality manifested only by repeated antisocial conduct) (or) (alcoholism without psychosis) (or) (drug abuse without psychosis).))
	If, after considering all of the evidence, including evidence that the defendant did or did not have a mental disease or defect, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether [Insert language as to the defendant having the culpable mental state involved. In general, such language will follow that contained in the verdict director. See Notes on Use 4 for examples.], you must find the defendant not guilty of [name of offense] as submitted in Instruction No. _____.

Notes on Use
	1.	Section 552.015.2(8), RSMo 2016.  This is a revision of MAI-CR 3d 308.03 (10-1-98).  This revision is to the Notes on Use only.
	2.	This instruction will be given only if requested by the defendant and if supported by evidence of mental disease or defect relevant to the existence of a required culpable mental state. 
	3.	The use of evidence of mental disease or defect negating the existence of a required culpable mental state is not the same as the affirmative defense of lack of responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.  (See MAI-CR 4th 406.02.)  Evidence of mental disease or defect negating a culpable mental state is simply evidence that the defendant did not have the culpable mental state that is an essential element of the offense. The burden is on the state to prove the existence of the culpable mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.  In order to use evidence of mental disease or defect to negate a required culpable mental state, it is not necessary that the defendant assert the affirmative defense of lack of responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.  In a given case, however, the defendant may assert lack of responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect and also use evidence of mental disease or defect to negate a required culpable mental state.
	If there is no submission of the affirmative defense of lack of responsibility, but there is evidence of mental disease or defect negating a culpable mental state, the opening paragraph will begin "You may consider evidence . . ." and the paragraph in parentheses defining "mental disease or defect" will be included.  The inclusion of the material in parentheses in the definition will depend upon the evidence.  
	If the affirmative defense of lack of responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect is submitted, using MAI-CR 4th 406.02, and there is evidence of mental disease or defect negating a culpable mental state, the opening paragraph will be, "If you do not find and believe from the evidence . . .", and the paragraph defining mental disease and defect will NOT be included.  Note that this definition will be included in the instruction on lack of responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.
	4.	The drafting of the language for the last paragraph is similar to drafting the language for a converse instruction.  Guidance for drafting the language to be inserted in the last paragraph may be found in Notes on Use 4 to MAI-CR 4th 408.02.  In general, the language used to set out the culpable mental state should follow the language of the verdict director and may include the conduct, circumstance, or result element to which the culpable mental state refers.
	For example, in a prosecution for assault in the first degree based on knowingly causing serious physical injury, the last paragraph of this instruction could be as follows:
If, after considering all of the evidence, including evidence that the defendant did or did not have a mental disease or defect, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly caused serious physical injury, you must find the defendant not guilty of assault in the first degree as submitted in Instruction No. _____. 
	The defendant may instead choose to place greater emphasis on the mental element of "knowingly" by not specifying the particular conduct, circumstances, or results.  Then, the last paragraph could be as follows:
If, after considering all of the evidence, including evidence that the defendant did or did not have a mental disease or defect, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted knowingly, you must find the defendant not guilty of assault in the first degree as submitted in Instruction No. _____. 
	There may be times when the defendant will want to combine a mental element with material from another paragraph of the verdict director.  For example, in a prosecution for murder in the first degree, if this instruction were used as to the element of deliberation, the last paragraph of this instruction could read:
If, after considering all of the evidence, including evidence that the defendant did or did not have a mental disease or defect, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant caused the death of [name of victim] after deliberation, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree as submitted in Instruction No. _____.
	To place greater emphasis on the mental element of deliberation, the defendant may wish to eliminate a specific reference to "causing the death" and the paragraph could be:
If, after considering all of the evidence, including evidence that the defendant did or did not have a mental disease or defect, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant deliberated before acting, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree as submitted in Instruction No. _____.
	The wording of the last paragraph must be based on the language of the verdict director and must fairly set out the mental element being conversed.  It must be a correct statement of law.
	The instruction must be supported by evidence of mental disease or defect relating to the existence of the culpable mental state.
	5.	There are a few offenses that require different mental states as to different elements or require more than a single culpable mental state.  Both mental states may be covered in this instruction.  For suggestions as to this, see Notes on Use 4(E) to MAI-CR 4th 408.02 dealing with conversing more than a single paragraph of a verdict director.
	6.	This instruction may be given for each verdict director so long as there is evidence of mental disease or defect relevant to the existence of a culpable mental state required for the offense submitted in that verdict director.
	7.	The use of this instruction does not prevent a defendant from also using a converse instruction based on MAI-CR 4th 408.02; however, such converse based on MAI-CR 4th 408.02 may not include the mental element conversed in this instruction.