Home Table of Contents

WPIC18.25Consent—First or Second Degree Rape or Indecent Liberties—Defense

11 WAPRAC WPIC 18.25Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 18.25 (4th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
October 2016 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 18. Miscellaneous Defenses
WPIC 18.25 Consent—First or Second Degree Rape or Indecent Liberties—Defense
Evidence of consent may be taken into consideration in determining whether the defendant used forcible compulsion to have [sexual intercourse] [sexual contact].
NOTE ON USE
Do not use prior versions of this instruction. See discussion in Comment.
Do not use WPIC 45.04 (Consent—Definition) with this instruction.
Use this instruction with WPIC 40.02 (Rape—First Degree—Elements) if the evidence warrants such an instruction.
Use this instruction with WPIC 41.02 (Rape—Second Degree—Elements), only if it is alleged that the sexual intercourse occurred by forcible compulsion and the evidence warrants such an instruction.
Use this instruction with WPIC 49.02 (Indecent Liberties—Elements) only if it is alleged that the sexual contact occurred by forcible compulsion and the evidence warrants such an instruction.
Use the term “sexual intercourse” with a second degree rape defense, and the term “sexual contact” with an indecent liberties charge.
COMMENT
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757, 336 P.3d 1134 (2014), the former version of this instruction has been withdrawn and it should not be used.
The defense of consent negates the element of forcible compulsion. State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757, 765, 336 P.3d 1134 (2014). Thus, RCW 9A.44.010(7), which places the burden of proving consent upon the defendant, is unconstitutional. In so holding, the court explicitly overruled two earlier cases, State v. Camara, 113 Wn.2d 631, 781 P.2d 483 (1989), and State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), which had held to the contrary.
Under no circumstances should this instruction be given unless requested, or expressly agreed to, by the defense. A defendant's constitutional right to control his or her defense prohibits the giving of instructions concerning defenses over the defendant's objections. State v. Lynch, 178 Wn.2d 487, 309 P.3d 482 (2013).
[Current as of December 2015.]
End of Document© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.