Home Table of Contents

WPIC 50.82 Enhanced Sentence—Controlled Substance Violation—Delivery to a Person Under the Age ...

11 WAPRAC WPIC 50.82Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 50.82 (5th Ed)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

January 2024 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part VIII. Drugs and Controlled Substances

WPIC CHAPTER 50.60. Enhanced Sentence—Controlled Substance Violations

WPIC 50.82 Enhanced Sentence—Controlled Substance Violation—Delivery to a Person Under the Age of 18

(Insert case caption)

(This special verdict is to be answered only if the jury finds the defendant guilty of (fill in the crime) [as charged in count ].)

We, the jury, return a special verdict by answering as follows:

QUESTION 1: Has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is eighteen years of age or older?

ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)

QUESTION 2: Has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant delivered (name of controlled substance) to a person who was under the age of eighteen?

ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)

[QUESTION 3: Has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is at least three years older than the person who received the substance?

ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)]

DATE:
	Presiding Juror

NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction if it is alleged that a defendant should be subject to enhanced sentencing because the defendant delivered a controlled substance to a person under the age of eighteen.

Use WPIC 160.00 (Concluding Instruction—Special Verdict—Penalty Enhancements).

Use bracketed material as applicable.

The third question should be used only if a defendant is charged under RCW 69.50.406(2).

COMMENT

RCW 69.50.406. This instruction is new for this edition.

Knowledge Element. Knowledge of the age of minor is not an element of the enhancement., State v. Hernandez, 53 Wn.App. 702, 77 P.2d 642 (1989).

Lack of knowledge of the age of the buyer is not an affirmative defense. State v. Hernandez, 53 Wn.App. 702, 77 P.2d 642 (1989). If an employee of a retail marijuana outlet sells marijuana products to a person under the age of 18, in the course of employment, the State may charge delivery of a controlled substance with the enhancement only if the defendant knew the age of the buyer. Laws of 2019, Chapter 379, § 1 (effective July 28, 2019).

[Current as of November 2019.]

End of Document