WPIC 36.07.02 Harassment—Felony—Threat to Kill—Elements
11 WAPRAC WPIC 36.07.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 36.07.02 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part VI. Crimes Against Personal Security
WPIC CHAPTER 36. Harassment, Hate Crimes, and Domestic Violence
WPIC 36.07.02 Harassment—Felony—Threat to Kill—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of [felony] harassment, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant knowingly threatened to kill (name of person) immediately or in the future;
(2) That the words or conduct of the defendant placed (name of person) in reasonable fear that the threat to kill would be carried out;
(3) That the defendant acted without lawful authority; and
(4) That the threat was made or received in the State of Washington.
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 of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction if the defendant is charged with felony harassment based on a threat to kill. If instead the felony charge is based on a previous conviction, then use WPIC 36.07.03 (Harassment—Felony—Previous Conviction—Elements) instead of this instruction.
Use the bracketed word “felony” only if the jury is also being instructed on the gross misdemeanor form of harassment. See discussion in the Comment.
In the typical case, the same names will be filled in for (1) and (2), but it is not inconsistent with the statute for the name of the person in (1) and (2) to be different.
With this instruction, use WPIC 2.24 (Threat—Definition) and WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition). If an instruction defining the phrase “without lawful authority” would be helpful to jurors, then see the Note on Use and Comment for WPIC 36.27 (Stalking—Without Lawful Authority—Definition).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.46.020(1), (2).
Title of crime. For ease of reference, the committee has referred to this crime as “felony harassment.” The word “felony” should not be included unless the jury is also being instructed on the gross misdemeanor form of the crime, WPIC 36.07. Juries are routinely instructed that they should not consider potential punishment during their deliberations. See e.g., WPIC 1.02 (Conclusion of Trial—Introductory Instruction). Referring to the crime as a “felony” to some extent is inconsistent with this mandate. Other suggestions include referring to the crime as “aggravated” or “serious.”
Threat to kill. The victim must reasonably believe that the threat to kill would be carried out. See State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1, 109 P.3d 415 (2005); State v. C.G., 150 Wn.2d 604, 80 P.3d 594 (2003). See also State v. France, 180 Wn.2d 809, 816–20, 329 P.3d 869 (2014), which approved the use of WPIC 2.24 (Threat—Definition) with this instruction. Even though “true threat” is not an element of the crime, the State must prove it. State v. France, 180 Wn.2d at 818.
Further discussion. Additional issues underlying this instruction are discussed in the Comment to WPIC 36.07 (Harassment—Gross Misdemeanor—Elements).
See the discussion in the Comment to WPIC 36.07.01 (Harassment—Felony—Definition).
[Current as of April 2020.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |