WPIC 20.02 Insanity—Burden of Proof
11 WAPRAC WPIC 20.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 20.02 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 20. Insanity
WPIC 20.02 Insanity—Burden of Proof
The burden is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that it is more probably true than not true.
If you find that the defendant has established this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction in every case in which the defense of insanity is in issue.
COMMENT
RCW 9A.12.010(2); RCW 10.77.030.
Cases have consistently confirmed that the burden is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., State v. Monaghan, 166 Wn.App. 521, 530, 270 P.3d 616 (2012); State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d 351, 368, 869 P.2d 43 (1994) (citing State v. Mays, 65 Wn.2d 58, 395 P.2d 758 (1964)); State v. Box, 109 Wn.2d 320, 745 P.2d 23 (1987); State v. Wicks, 98 Wn.2d 620, 657 P.2d 781 (1983); State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wn.2d 789, 659 P.2d 488 (1983). Placing the burden on the defendant does not offend either state or federal due process guaranties. State v. Box, 109 Wn.2d 320, 745 P.2d 23 (1987). See also State v. Haq, 166 Wn.App. 221, 234, 268 P.3d 997 (2012); State v. Chanthabouly, 164 Wn.App. 104, 127–28, 262 P.3d 144 (2011).
[Current as of February 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |