Correction: Canopus found proposed additions to the standard jury instructions -- they're not the instructions for this case, because so far there is no case. It's not even really clear that if these proposals are now part of the standard jury instructions or not, and even if they were and there was a case -- these instructions wouldn't be given to jury because the police officer would not be tried for evading a police officer (the kid could be, if he was still alive ...)

Also, the proposed jury instructions seem to be at odds with the actual law -- the jury instructions say "motor vehicle" but the law I saw said simply "vehicle". I guess in the vast majority of cases, the distinction doesn't matter -- and if any case ever came up where it did matter, they'd fix the jury instructions.
Is this really so unusual?