WPIC 39.23 Custodial Interference—First Degree—Parent—Elements
11 WAPRAC WPIC 39.23Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 39.23 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part VI. Crimes Against Personal Security
WPIC CHAPTER 39. Kidnapping, Unlawful Imprisonment and Custodial Interference
WPIC 39.23 Custodial Interference—First Degree—Parent—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of custodial interference in the first degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That the defendant was a [parent] [person acting under the directions of a parent];
(2) That the defendant intentionally took, enticed, retained, or concealed a child under the age of eighteen years and for whom no lawful custody order or [parenting plan] [court order making residential provisions for the child] had been entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, from the other parent;
(3) That the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the other parent from access to the child permanently or for a protracted period; 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 of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
Use WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition) with this instruction. Use WPIC 19.12 (Custodial Interference—Defense) with this instruction if the statutory defense set forth in RCW 9A.40.080 is asserted.
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).
Use the bracketed “parenting plan” or “court-ordered parenting plan” for crimes committed before July 24, 2015, that do not involve a domestic violence protection order's child visitation provisions. Use the bracketed “court order making residential provisions for the child” if the crime occurred on or after July 24, 2015.
Use this instruction with the first paragraph of WPIC 39.22 (Custodial Interference—First Degree—Parent—Definition).
If the facts on which jurisdiction is based are in dispute, a special verdict form may need to be submitted to the jury. See WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and WPIC 190.10 (Special Verdict Form—Jurisdiction).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.40.060(3).
In 2015, the Legislature amended RCW 9A.40.060(2) to replace the term “parenting plan” with “court order making residential provisions for the child.” Laws of 2015, Chapter 38, § 2. The change was in response to State v. Veliz, 176 Wn.2d 849, 298 P.3d 75 (2013), in which the Supreme Court held that the term “parenting plan” is a term of art referring only to parenting plans established pursuant to an RCW Title 26 proceeding. The court held that custodial interference had not been committed when a parent withheld access to a child in violation of a domestic violence protection order that included a child visitation provision, because that was not a “parenting plan.” State v. Veliz, 176 Wn.2d at 863.
In State v. Carver, 113 Wn.2d 591, 781 P.2d 1308 (1989), the Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 9A.40.060 is not unconstitutionally vague. The court found that the statute is constitutional both on its face and as applied to the defendant.
[Current as of January 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |