Home Table of Contents

WPI 365.15 Sexually Violent Predators—Recent Overt Act—Definition

6A WAPRAC WPI 365.15Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 365.15 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part XIX. Involuntary Treatment
Chapter 365. Involuntary Treatment—Sexually Violent Predators
WPI 365.15 Sexually Violent Predators—Recent Overt Act—Definition
“Recent overt act” means any act or threat or combination thereof that has either caused harm of a sexually violent nature or creates a reasonable apprehension of such harm in the mind of an objective person who knows of the history and mental condition of the person engaging in the act or behaviors.
Use this instruction when a “recent overt act” must be proved.
RCW 71.09.020.
In certain circumstances, the court will make a pretrial ruling as to whether the State is required to plead and prove a recent overt act. See In re Detention of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150, 125 P.3d 111(2005) (pretrial ruling necessary); In re Detention of Albrecht, 147 Wn.2d 1, 51 P.3d 73 (2002), on remand, In re Detention of Albrecht, 129 Wn.App. 243, 118 P.3d 909 (2005) (recent overt act as a jury determination). For further discussion, see the Comment to WPI 365.10 (Sexually Violent Predators—Elements for Commitment). Use this instruction when a “recent overt act” is required under RCW 71.09.030 or under the due process clause. See In re Detention of Moore, 167 Wn.2d 113, 124–25, 216 P.3d 1015 (2009); In re Detention of Turay, 150 Wn.2d 71, 74 P.3d 1194 (2003); Albrecht, 147 Wn.2d 1 (evidence was sufficient to prove recent overt act when respondent offered a boy money to follow him, then attempted to grab the boy's arm; respondent was a diagnosed pedophile who had a 20-year history of sexually molesting children using the specific grooming technique that he again employed with this boy); Henrickson v. State, 140 Wn.2d 686, 2 P.3d 473 (2000); In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wn.App. 252, 62 P.3d 514 (2003); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wn.App. 734, 37 P.3d 325 (2002).
The jury is not required to be unanimous as to whether the “recent overt act” was a threat or an actual act. In re Detention of Aston, 161 Wn.App 824, 251 P.3d 917 (2011).
[Current as of October 2020.]
End of Document