WPIC 48.08 Permitting Prostitution—Elements
11 WAPRAC WPIC 48.08Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 48.08 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part VII. Sex Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 48. Prostitution
WPIC 48.08 Permitting Prostitution—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of permitting prostitution, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant had possession or control of premises at (location or address);
(2) That the defendant knew that those premises were being used for prostitution purposes at that time;
(3) That the defendant failed without lawful excuse to make reasonable effort to halt or abate such use; and
(4) That any of these acts 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.
NOTE ON USE
With this instruction, use the first paragraph only of WPIC 48.11 (Advanced Prostitution—Profited from Prostitution—Definition), WPIC 65.01 (Premises—Definition), WPIC 2.05 (Building—Definition), WPIC 2.08 (Dwelling—Definition), and WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition).
In element (4), 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 “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.88.090.
Permitting prostitution is not a lesser included offense of promoting prostitution in the second degree. State v. Putnam, 31 Wn.App. 156, 639 P.2d 858 (1982).
In State v. Johnson, 119 Wn.2d 167, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992), the Washington Supreme Court held that an actual act of prostitution is not required to establish the offense of permitting prostitution if the defendant has subjective knowledge that the premises over which the defendant has possession or control are being used for prostitution purposes. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe the premises were being used for acts of prostitution.
[Current as of December 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |