WPIC 131.02 Identity Theft—First Degree—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 131.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 131.02 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
December 2021 Update
Part XIII. Miscellaneous Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 131. Identity Theft
WPIC 131.02 Identity Theft—First Degree—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of identity theft in the first degree, each of the following four elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant knowingly [obtained, possessed, or transferred] [or] [used] a means of identification or financial information of another person [, living or dead];
(2) That the defendant did so with the intent to commit any crime;
(3) That the defendant knew that the means of identification or financial information belonged to another person;
(4) [(a) That the defendant obtained [credit] [money] [goods] [services] [or] [anything else] in excess of $1,500 in value from the acts described in element (1);] [or]
[(b) That the defendant knowingly targeted a [senior] [vulnerable individual];] and
(5) That any of these acts occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has] [elements (1), (2), (3), (5), and either of alternative elements (4)(a) or (4)(b) 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) or (4)(b) 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 of the evidence you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of [these elements] [elements (1, (2), (3), (4), or (5)], then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction for first degree identity theft cases.
In element (1), the phrase “obtained, possessed, or transferred” is separately bracketed from the word “used.” The separate bracketing is intended to emphasize that, for cases in which the defendant is charged only with “use” of the designated items, jurors should not also be instructed with the other statutory terms.
With this instruction, use WPIC 131.10 (Identity Theft—Financial Information—Definition), WPIC 131.11 (Identity Theft—Means of Identification—Definition), WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition), WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition), and WPIC 131.01.01 (Identity Theft—Senior—Definition) or WPIC 131.01.02 (Identity Theft—Vulnerable Individual—Definition), as applicable.
Use the language relating to alternative means if the defendant is charged with both obtaining property worth more than $1500 and targeting a vulnerable adult. Use other bracketed material as applicable.
For a discussion of the phrase “any of these acts” in element (5), see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
RCW 9.35.020(1), (2).
This instruction has been revised for this edition to reflect statutory changes enacted as the result of Initiative 1501 (effective December 8, 2016). Laws of 2017, Chapter 4, §§ 3 and 5 (effective July 23, 2017).
To be convicted of either first or second degree identity theft, the defendant must have knowledge that the means of identification or financial information belonged to another person; it is insufficient to show simply that the defendant knew he was using or possessing a means of identification or financial information. State v. Zeferino-Lopez, 179 Wn.App. 592, 319 P.3d 94 (2014).
In order to constitute identity theft, the defendant must use the identity of a specific, real person. State v. Fedorov, 181 Wn.App. 187, 324 P.3d 784; State v. Hayes, 164 Wn.App. 459, 262 P.3d 538 (2011).
The term “person” includes corporations. State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 298 P.3d 724 (2013).
As to element (2), the jury need not be instructed on the elements of the crime the defendant intended to commit, so long as the jury is required to find that a crime was committed and the jury is not left guessing as to which crime the defendant intended to commit. State v. Fedorov, 181 Wn.App. 187, 324 P.3d 784 (2014).
As to element (4), first degree identity theft requires that the defendant obtain $1,500 in value by the use of the means of identification or financial information.
Possession of another person's identification with intent to commit a crime may constitute second degree identity theft; actual use of the false identification is not required. State v. Sells, 166 Wn.App. 918, 271 P.3d 952 (2012).
For a general discussion of the identity theft statutes, see WPIC 131.00 (Identity Theft—Introduction).
[Current as of December 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
|End of Document|