WPIC 39.23.01 Custodial Interference—First Degree (Alternate Means)—Parent—Elements
11 WAPRAC WPIC 39.23.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 39.23.01 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part VI. Crimes Against Personal Security
WPIC CHAPTER 39. Kidnapping, Unlawful Imprisonment and Custodial Interference
WPIC 39.23.01 Custodial Interference—First Degree (Alternate Means)—Parent—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of custodial interference in the first degree, each of the following five elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That the defendant was a parent;
(2) That the defendant intentionally took, enticed, retained, or concealed [his] [her] child from the other parent having the lawful right to time with the child pursuant to a [court-ordered parenting plan] [court order making residential provisions for the child];
(3) That the defendant acted with the intent to deny the other parent access to the child;
(4) That the defendant
[(a)] [intended to hold the child permanently or for a protracted period of time;] [or]
[(b)] [exposed the child to a substantial risk of illness or physical injury;] [or]
[(c)] [caused the child to be removed from the state of usual residence;] and
(5) That any of these acts occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that elements (1), (2), (3), and (5), and any of the alternative elements [(4)(a),] [(4)(b),] or [(4)(c)] have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. To return a verdict of guilty, the jury need not be unanimous as to which of alternatives [(4)(a),] [(4)(b),] or [(4)(c)] has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror finds that at least one alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, if after weighing all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt as to any of elements (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
Use bracketed material as applicable. For directions on the various ways to use the bracketed phrases relating to how the crime is committed, see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use and Comment to WPIC 4.23 (Elements of the Crime—Alternative Elements—Alternative Means for Committing a Single Offense—Form).
Use the bracketed “court-ordered parenting plan” for crimes committed before July 24, 2015, that do not involve a domestic violence protection order's child visitation provisions. Use the bracketed “court order making residential provisions for the child” if the crime occurred on or after July 24, 2015.
If element (4) is drafted using only one of the alternative provisions, then modify the instruction's final two paragraphs to use the corresponding paragraphs from WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form) (the corresponding language is set forth in the Comment to WPIC 39.02). If element (4) is drafted using more than one, but fewer than all, of the alternative provisions, then modify the instruction accordingly.
For a discussion of the phrase “any of these acts” in the jurisdictional element, see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
If the facts on which jurisdiction is based are in dispute, a special verdict form may need to be submitted to the jury. See WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and WPIC 190.10 (Special Verdict Form—Jurisdiction).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.40.060(2). This instruction has been revised for this edition because of an amendment to the statute. See the Comment to WPIC 39.23 (Custodial Interference—First Degree—Parent—Elements) for a discussion of the statutory change.
[Current as of January 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |