WPI 1.03 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
6 WAPRAC WPI 1.03Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 1.03 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part I. General Instructions
Chapter 1. Introductory and General
WPI 1.03 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
The evidence that has been presented to you may be either direct or circumstantial. The term “direct evidence” refers to evidence that is given by a witness who has directly perceived something at issue in this case. The term “circumstantial evidence” refers to evidence from which, based on your common sense and experience, you may reasonably infer something that is at issue in this case.
The law does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence in terms of their weight or value in finding the facts in this case. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.
NOTE ON USE
This instruction should be given upon the request of any party when there is circumstantial evidence in the case. If it is appropriate that the jury also be instructed on the inference of negligence, WPI 22.01 (Res Ipsa Loquitur—Inference of Negligence), should be used instead of this instruction.
COMMENT
The trial court may, in its discretion, decline to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence if the case rests upon direct testimony, even if some circumstantial evidence was presented during the trial. Kemp v. Leonard, 70 Wn.2d 643, 424 P.2d 660 (1967).
[Current as of September 2018.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |