WPIC 115.02 Bribery—Offering or Conferring—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 115.02Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 115.02 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part XIII. Miscellaneous Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 115. Bribery And Corrupt Influence
WPIC 115.02 Bribery—Offering or Conferring—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of bribery, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant offered, conferred, or agreed to confer any pecuniary benefit upon a public servant;
(2) That the defendant acted with the corrupt intent to secure a particular result in a particular matter involving the exercise of the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action in his or her official capacity; 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 of 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 this instruction for cases of offering or conferring a bribe. For cases of requesting or accepting a bribe, use WPIC 115.03 (Bribery—Requesting or Accepting—Elements) instead of this instruction.
With this instruction, use WPIC 2.02 (Benefit—Definition), WPIC 2.11 (Government—Definition), WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition), WPIC 2.17 (Pecuniary Benefit—Definition), and WPIC 2.22 (Public Servant—Definition).
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.68.010(1)(a).
RCW 9A.68.010(2) states that limitations on the public servant's authority is not a defense to a charge of bribery. No pattern instruction is proposed. An instruction can usually be drafted in the language of the statute. One who receives a bribe to influence his or her official acts cannot use the defense that he or she intended to do them anyway. State v. Lyskoski, 47 Wn.2d 102, 287 P.2d 114 (1955).
Implied element of corrupt intent. The instruction includes an element of corrupt intent based on State v. O'Neill, 103 Wn.2d 853, 700 P.2d 711 (1985). Rejecting constitutional challenges to the statute for overbreadth and vagueness, the court found corrupt intent to be an implied element of the crime of bribery, reasoning that the Legislature did not intend to proscribe any innocent or constitutionally protected activity.
The court did not address if or how the jury should be instructed on the implied element. Therefore, the WPI Committee has not drafted an instruction defining the phrase “corrupt intent.”
In O'Neill, the court also rejected an argument that the statutory phrase “official capacity” was unconstitutionally vague, finding it meant “what he or she is employed to do” in contrast to “being engaged in a personal frolic.” Quoting O'Neill, the Court of Appeals found the distinction equally useful in defining a public servant's “official action.” State v. Hendrickson, 177 Wn.App. 67, 311 P.3d 41 (2013).
Trading in special influence, RCW 9A.68.050, is neither a lesser degree of the crime of bribery nor a lesser included offense of bribery. State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 745 P.2d 854 (1987).
[Current as of September 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |