WPIC 70.33 Theft From a Vulnerable Adult—Second Degree—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 70.33Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 70.33 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part IX. Crimes Against Property
WPIC CHAPTER 70. Theft
WPIC 70.33 Theft From a Vulnerable Adult—Second Degree—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of theft from a vulnerable adult in the second degree, each of the following five elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant
[(a)] [wrongfully obtained or exerted unauthorized control over property [or services] of a vulnerable adult [or the value thereof];] [or]
[(b)] [by color or aid of deception, obtained control over property [or services] of a vulnerable adult [or the value thereof];] [or]
[(c)] [appropriated lost or misdelivered property [or services] of a vulnerable adult [or the value thereof];]
(2) That the property [or services] exceeded $750 in value [but did not exceed $5,000 in value];
(3) That the defendant intended to deprive the other person of the property [or services];
(4) That the other person was a vulnerable adult;
(5) That the defendant [knew] [or] [must have known] [or] [should have known] the victim was a vulnerable adult; and
(6) That this act occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that elements (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), and any of the alternative elements [(1)(a)] [(1)(b)] or [(1)(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 [(1)(a)] [(1)(b)] or [(1)(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 of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of elements (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6), then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction for second degree theft from a vulnerable adult.
The instruction is drafted for cases in which the jury needs to be instructed using two or more of the alternatives for element (1). Care must be taken to limit the alternatives to those that were included in the charging document and are supported by sufficient evidence. For directions on when and how to draft instructions with alternative elements, 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). For the related jury interrogatory, see WPIC 190.09 (Special Verdict Form—Elements with Alternatives). For any case in which substantial evidence supports only one of the alternatives in element (1), revise the instruction to remove references to the unsupported alternative elements following the format set forth in WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
With this instruction, use WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition), WPIC 10.02 Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition), WPIC 79.20 (Value—Definition), and WPIC 79.35 (Vulnerable Adult—Theft—Definition).
As applicable, use WPIC 2.21 (Property—Definition), WPIC 79.02 (Wrongfully Obtains—Exerts Unauthorized Control—Definition), WPIC 79.03 (By Color or Aid of Deception—Definition), WPIC 79.04 (Deception—Definition), WPIC 79.05 (Appropriate Lost or Misdelivered Property or Services—Definition), and WPIC 79.06 (Services—Definition).
Use WPIC 19.08 (Theft—Defense) with this instruction if the statutory defense is an issue supported by the evidence.
COMMENT
RCW 9A.56.400
In 2017, the Legislature added the offenses of theft from a vulnerable adult, first and second degree. RCW 9A.56.400.
The mens rea for this offense is that the defendant “must have known” or “should have known” the victim was a “vulnerable adult.” Neither term is otherwise defined. The WPI Committee has added “knew” as an alternative mental state since it is already defined by statute, has a body of case law, an existing pattern instruction, and is a higher mental state than “must have” or “should have.”
Firearms and motor vehicles are specifically excluded from this criminal offense. See Comment to WPIC 70.06 (Theft—Second Degree—Value of Property—Elements).
[Current as of January, 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |