Home Table of Contents

WPIC 35.41 Custodial Assault—Corrections Institution—Detention Facility—Elements

11 WAPRAC WPIC 35.41Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 35.41 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
April 2021 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part VI. Crimes Against Personal Security
WPIC CHAPTER 35. Assault and Reckless Endangerment
WPIC 35.41 Custodial Assault—Corrections Institution—Detention Facility—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of custodial assault, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant assaulted (name of person);
(2) That, at the time of the assault, (name of person) was [a staff member] [or] [a volunteer] [or] [employed in an educational program] [or] [a personal service provider] [or] [a vendor] [or] [an agent of a vendor] at a[n] [adult] [or] [juvenile] [corrections institution] [or] [local detention facility];
(3) That, at the time of the assault, (name of person) was performing official duties; and
(4) That any of these acts 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 WPIC 35.50 (Assault—Definition) with this instruction.
Use bracketed material as applicable. For directions on using bracketed phrases, see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction).
For a discussion of the phrase “any of these acts” 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.36.100(1)(a), (b).
A defendant is not required to have knowledge of the employment status of the victim in a custodial assault case. State v. Brown, 140 Wn.2d 456, 998 P.2d 321 (2000) (holding that knowledge is not an element in an assault upon a police officer). Further discussion of this issue is found in the Comment to WPIC 35.23.02 (Assault—Third Degree—Law Enforcement Officer—Elements).
An individual may claim self-defense and use force to resist actions of a corrections officer only when the person is in actual danger of physical injury; reasonable apprehension of harm does not support use of force in this context. State v. Bradley, 141 Wn.2d 731, 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (adult correctional institution); State v. Garcia, 107 Wn.App. 545, 27 P.3d 1225 (2001) (juvenile institution). For further discussion of lawful use of force in the context of resisting arrest, see the Comments to WPIC 17.02.01 (Lawful Force—Resisting Police or Correctional Officer) and WPIC 35.23.02 (Assault—Third Degree—Law Enforcement Officer—Elements). There may be an issue as to which self-defense standard applies when the person assaulted comes within the class of persons included in RCW 9A.36.100(1) but is not a corrections officer.
[Current as of April 2020.]
End of Document