Home Table of Contents

WPI 4.01 Admissions by a Party Opponent Under ER 801(d)(2)

6 WAPRAC WPI 4.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 4.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part I. General Instructions
Chapter 4. Admissions
WPI 4.01 Admissions by a Party Opponent Under ER 801(d)(2)
(The WPI Committee recommends that no instruction be given on this subject.)
Admissions under ER 801(d)(2). No instruction should be given on admissions by a party opponent under ER 801(d)(2). This type of instruction would unduly emphasize a single portion of the evidence and may violate the constitutional prohibition against commenting on the evidence. See Gianini v. Cerini, 100 Wash. 687, 171 P. 1007 (1918) (trial court properly refused to give a cautionary instruction that casual statements made in random conversations should be scrutinized with great caution and are the weakest character evidence; the requested instruction would have been a comment on the evidence); Allison v. Bartelt, 121 Wash. 418, 209 P. 863 (1922) (under the holding in Gianini, the trial court properly refused to instruct that admissions were evidence that should be subject to careful scrutiny).
Admissions under CR 36(b). An instruction concerning the effect of an admission made pursuant to CR 36 is proper. See WPI 6.10.02 (Use of Admissions or Binding Stipulations Under CR 36(b)).
Other admissions/stipulations. If a judicial admission in open court or a stipulation is involved, the court may orally advise the jury as to its effect at the time it occurs. Depending on the circumstances, the fact may be established and the jury told to accept it as a fact, or the jury may be directed to treat it as evidence of the fact. See WPI 6.10.01 (Stipulations).
[Current as of September 2018.]
End of Document