Home Table of Contents

WPI 365.34 Sexually Violent Predators—Unconditional Discharge Trial—Elements

6A WAPRAC WPI 365.34Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 365.34 (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 365.34 Sexually Violent Predators—Unconditional Discharge Trial—Elements
To establish that(name of respondent)is a sexually violent predator, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That(name of respondent)was previously found to be a sexually violent predator;
(2) That(name of respondent)continues to suffer from a [mental abnormality] [or] [personality disorder] which causes [him] [her] serious difficulty controlling [his] [her] sexually violent behavior; and
(3) The [mental abnormality] [or] [personality disorder] continues to make(name of respondent)likely to commit predatory acts of sexual violence unless confined to a secure facility.
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict that respondent continues to be a sexually violent predator.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any of one or more of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict that the respondent is no longer a sexually violent predator.
Use this instruction with the following instructions, as appropriate: WPI 365.02 (Sexually Violent Predators—Conclusion of Trial—Introductory Instruction); WPI 365.30 (Sexually Violent Predators—Conditional Release (LRA)—Unconditional Discharge—Advance Oral Instruction—Voir Dire); WPI 365.03 (Basis of Expert Opinion—Limiting Instruction); WPI 365.04 (Opinion Testimony—Limitation on Consideration of Evidence); WPI 365.35 for defining “reasonable doubt” in an unconditional release trial; WPI 365.12 for defining “mental abnormality”; WPI 365.12.01 for defining “personality disorder”; WPI 365.13 for defining “predatory”; WPI 365.14 for defining “likely to engage”; WPI 365.16 for defining “sexual violence”; WPI 365.20 (Sexually Violent Predators—Concluding Instruction); and WPI 365.36 (Sexually Violent Predators—Verdict Form—Unconditional Discharge).
In elements (2) and (3), use the bracketed “mental abnormality” and/or “personality disorder” language in accord with the evidence presented at trial.
RCW 71.09.090(3)(c) provides as follows:
If the issue at the hearing is whether the person should be unconditionally discharged, the burden of proof shall be upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the committed person's condition remains such that the person continues to meet the definition of a sexually violent predator. Evidence of the prior commitment trial and disposition is admissible. The recommitment proceeding shall otherwise proceed as set forth in RCW 71.09.050 and 71.09.060.
In addition, once a respondent shows cause for a new trial under RCW 71.09.090, the respondent “is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing” not limited to the issues presented at the show cause hearing. In re Detention of Elmore, 162 Wn.2d 27, 38–39, 168 P.3d 1285 (2007) (emphasis in original).
The elements of “mental abnormality” or “personality disorder” are alternative means of the requirements of RCW 71.09.020(18). In re Detention of Halgren, 156 Wn.2d 795, 811, 132 P.3d 714 (2006). Juror unanimity is not required as long as substantial evidence supports both alternatives. Halgren, 156 Wn.2d at 811.
[Current as of October 2020.]
End of Document