WPIC 76.02 Extortion—First Degree—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 76.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 76.02 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part IX. Crimes Against Property
WPIC CHAPTER 76. Extortion
WPIC 76.02 Extortion—First Degree—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of extortion in the first degree, each of the following three elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant knowingly obtained or attempted to obtain property or services of another [including sexual favors] by threat;
(2) That such threat communicated, directly or indirectly, an intent
[(a)] [to cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person] [or]
[(b)] [to cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the defendant] [or]
[(c)] [to subject the person threatened or any person to physical confinement or restraint];
and
(3) That any of these acts occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that elements (1) and (3) and any of the alternative elements [(2)(a),] [(2)(b),] or [(2)(c)] have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. To return a verdict of guilty, the jury need not be unanimous as to which of alternatives [(2)(a),] [(2)(b),] or [(2)(c)] has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror finds that at least one alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, if after weighing all of the evidence you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of elements (1), (2), or (3), then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
NOTE ON USE
Use WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition) and WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition) with this instruction. Use WPIC 2.03 (Bodily Injury—Definition), WPIC 2.21 (Property—Definition), and WPIC 79.06 (Services—Definition) as applicable with this instruction.
The instruction is drafted for cases in which the jury needs to be instructed using two or more of the alternatives for element (2). Care must be taken to limit the alternatives to those that were included in the charging document and are supported by sufficient evidence. For directions on when and how to draft instructions with alternative elements, see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use and Comment to WPIC 4.23 (Elements of the Crime—Alternative Elements—Alternative Means for Committing a Single Offense—Form). For the related special verdict form, see WPIC 190.09 (Special Verdict Form—Elements with Alternatives). For any case in which substantial evidence supports only one of the alternatives in element (2), revise the instruction to remove references to alternative elements following the format set forth in WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
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 9A.56.120; RCW 9A.56.110; RCW 9A.04.110(28)(a), (b), (c).
The instruction refers to property or services of another instead of the statutory reference to the owner. The court in State v. Taylor, 30 Wn.App. 89, 632 P.2d 892 (1981), held that the statute does not require that the person communicating the threat attempt to obtain anything for himself or herself—it is sufficient that the person communicating the threat attempt to obtain something from another. RCW 9A.56.010(11) defines owner and may be used if ownership becomes an issue.
The “property” may be an intangible as long as it has value. State v. McClure, 200 Wn.App 231, 402 P.3d 355 (2017).
Element (1) does not involve alternative means. To “obtain or attempt to obtain” are not “alternative means” of committing extortion but “one and the same crime, committed by a single means: the making of the extorsive threat.” State v. Martinez, 76 Wn.App. 1, 6, 884 P.2d 3 (1994). The crime is complete upon the making of the threat, regardless of the victim's conduct in response to the threat, i.e., regardless of whether the perpetrator successfully obtains the property. State v. Martinez, 76 Wn.App. at 6.
Element (2), however, does involve alternative means.
[Current as of December 2018.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |