Home Table of Contents

WPIC 19.09 Extortion—Second Degree—Defense

11 WAPRAC WPIC 19.09Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 19.09 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 19. Special Statutory Defenses
WPIC 19.09 Extortion—Second Degree—Defense
With respect to the charge that defendant threatened to accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person, it is a defense that the defendant reasonably believed the threatened criminal charge to be true and that the defendant's sole purpose was to compel or induce the person threatened to take reasonable action to make good the wrong that was the subject of such threatened criminal charge.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the threat was wrongful. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge].
Use this instruction with WPIC 76.06 (Extortion—Second Degree—Elements), if the statutory defense is in issue. This defense by its terms applies only to the charge mentioned in this instruction's first line.
RCW 9A.56.130(2).
While the statute is silent regarding the burden of proof on this defense, the statute requires that the prosecution establish that the threat was “wrongful.” The statutory defense, if believed, would negate this element. The WPI Committee, therefore, believes that the burden is on the State to prove the absence of the defense when the defendant asserts that he or she reasonably believed the threatened criminal charge to be true. State v. W.R., Jr., 181 Wn.2d 757, 763–65, 336 P.3d 1134 (2014).
For a general discussion of whether the burden of proving a defense can be shifted to the defendant, see WPIC 14.00 (Defenses—Introduction).
A defendant is entitled to this instruction if any evidence presented at trial supports the defense, regardless of the party that presented it. A defendant is not, however, entitled to this instruction solely based upon an absence of evidence. State v. Fisher, 185 Wn.2d 836, 851–52, 374 P.2d 1185 (2016) (jury should be instructed on the defense even if the evidence in support is weak, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility).
Caution. 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 February 2019.]
End of Document