WPIC 35.35.02 Assault of a Child—First Degree—Reckless Infliction of Great Bodily Harm—Elements
11 WAPRAC WPIC 35.35.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 35.35.02 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part VI. Crimes Against Personal Security
WPIC CHAPTER 35. Assault and Reckless Endangerment
WPIC 35.35.02 Assault of a Child—First Degree—Reckless Infliction of Great Bodily Harm—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of assault of a child in the first degree, each of the following elements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant intentionally assaulted (name of person) and recklessly inflicted great bodily harm;
(2) That the defendant was eighteen years of age or older and (name of person) was under the age of thirteen; and
(3) That this act occurred in the State of Washington.
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.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction with WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition), WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition), WPIC 2.04 (Great Bodily Harm—Definition), and WPIC 35.50 (Assault—Definition).
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).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.36.120(1)(b)(i).
For a discussion of the “wrongful act” necessary for a finding of recklessness, see the Comment to WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition). The court in State v. Harris, 164 Wn.App. 377, 263 P.3d 1276 (2011), said the jury in an assault of a child in the first degree case should have been instructed that it had to find reckless disregard of the substantial risk that “great bodily harm” would occur under RCW 9A.36.120(1)(b)(i), not that “a wrongful act” would occur. However, in State v. Johnson, 180 Wn.2d 295, 325 P.3d 135 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court, when addressing the issue in the context of Assault 2, indicated that so long as all elements are included in the “to convict,” a specially-tailored definition of recklessness is not required.
[Current as of April 2020.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |