Home Table of Contents

WPIC 35.33 Reckless Endangerment—Elements

11 WAPRAC WPIC 35.33Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 35.33 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
December 2021 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part VI. Crimes Against Personal Security
WPIC CHAPTER 35. Assault and Reckless Endangerment
WPIC 35.33 Reckless Endangerment—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of reckless endangerment, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant acted recklessly;
(2) That such reckless conduct created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; and
(3) That this act occurred in the [State of Washington] [City of ] [County of ].
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if after weighing all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
Along with this instruction, use WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition) and WPIC 2.03 (Bodily Injury—Physical Injury—Bodily Harm—Definition). See discussion in the Comment regarding use of WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition).
In the jurisdictional element, choose from among the bracketed phrases depending on whether the case is in superior, municipal, or district court. See WPIC 4.20 (Introduction).
For a discussion of the phrase “this act” in the jurisdictional element, see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
RCW 9A.36.050
Specifying particular acts alleged to be reckless. The first element of this instruction is drafted in general terms, so the jury is simply required to determine whether the defendant acted recklessly. The jury is not instructed as to which acts are alleged to have been reckless. In some cases, however, it may be advisable to specify for the jurors which of the defendant's various acts are alleged to have been reckless.
Recklessness. The mens rea of this crime is recklessness. The State is not required to prove that the defendant intended to cause the harm. State v. Austin, 65 Wn.App. 759, 831 P.2d 747 (1992). WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition) is required to be used with this instruction. The bracket after “wrongful act” in that instruction should include language that the defendant disregarded a substantial risk of “death or serious physical injury.” See the discussion in the Comment to WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition).
The Washington Supreme Court recognized the subjective and objective component of reckless endangerment in State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897, 904, 365 P.3d 746 (2016). The Court held that the State has to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of and disregarded a considerable risk-not a certainty-of death or serious physical pain or injury that her conduct posed to her young nephew, and that her behavior constituted a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would have acted based on the known facts.” State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d at 905. Although holding that neither DUI nor speeding alone would establish proof of reckless endangerment, the Court found facts sufficient in the Rich case. State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d at 910.
[Current as of April 2020.]
End of Document