Home Table of Contents

WPIC 50.21 Delivery of a Material in Lieu of a Controlled Substance—Elements

11 WAPRAC WPIC 50.21Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 50.21 (5th Ed)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

January 2024 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part VIII. Drugs and Controlled Substances

WPIC CHAPTER 50. Uniform Controlled Substances Act

WPIC 50.21 Delivery of a Material in Lieu of a Controlled Substance—Elements

To convict the defendant of the crime of delivery of a material in lieu of a controlled substance, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) That on or about (date), the defendant knowingly offered, arranged or negotiated for the delivery, sale, distribution or dispensing of a controlled substance;

(2) That the defendant delivered an uncontrolled substance in lieu of the controlled substance; and

(3) 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 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition), WPIC 50.07 (Deliver—Definition), and WPIC 50.50 (Controlled Substance—Definition) with this instruction.

For a discussion of the phrase “any of these acts” in element (3), see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).

COMMENT

RCW 69.50.4012.

In State v. Eddie A., 40 Wn.App. 717, 700 P.2d 751 (1985), the court held that the State must prove that the substance delivered was not a controlled substance. However, the State need not prove precisely what substance was delivered in lieu of the purported controlled substance. It is sufficient that the substance delivered was not controlled. State v. Anderson, 58 Wn.App. 135, 791 P.2d 557 (1990).

Neither guilty knowledge nor intent is an element of delivery of a material in lieu of a controlled substance. State v. Wilson, 95 Wn.2d 828, 631 P.2d 362 (1981) (guilty knowledge is not an element); State v. Prather, 30 Wn.App. 666, 638 P.2d 95 (1981) (intent is not an element). In Wilson, the court stated:

It is impossible for one to contract for the delivery of a controlled substance without knowing what he is doing, since to contract involves an intentional act. … The element of guilty knowledge … would be established by proof of the contract to deliver.

State v. Wilson, 95 Wn.2d at 834.

[Current as of November 2019.]

End of Document