WPIC 36.53.01 Contact Consented by Victim—No Defense
11 WAPRAC WPIC 36.53.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 36.53.01 (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 36.53.01 Contact Consented by Victim—No Defense
It is not a defense to a charge of violation of a court order that a person protected by the order invited or consented to the contact.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction if there is evidence that the person named as the protected person in the order invited or consented to the contact.
COMMENT
Both RCW 26.50.035(1)(c) and RCW 10.99.040(4)(b) require that orders issued for the protection of a domestic violence victim specifically inform the person restrained that he or she is subject to arrest even if the protected person invites or permits contact.
In State v. Dejarlais, 136 Wn.2d 939, 969 P.2d 90 (1998), the Washington Supreme Court upheld the trial court refusal to instruct the jury that it was a defense to the charge of violating a domestic violence protection that the contact was invited by the person named in the order. The court stated that consent is not a defense to a charge of violating a court order. The decision has been codified by direct statutory language. RCW 26.50.035(1)(c) and RCW 10.99.040(4)(b).
In State v. Sanchez, 166 Wn.App. 304, 310, 271 P.3d 264 (2012), the court held that consent of a protected person cannot override a court order excluding a person from the residence.
[Current as of April 2020.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |