WPIC 115.17 Granting Unlawful Compensation—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 115.17Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 115.17 (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 115.17 Granting Unlawful Compensation—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of granting unlawful compensation, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant offered, paid, or agreed to pay compensation to a public servant for advice or other assistance in preparing or promoting a [bill] [contract] [claim] [or] [transaction];
(2) That the public servant was likely to have an official discretion to exercise with respect to the matter;
(3) That the defendant acted knowingly; 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 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 granting unlawful compensation. For cases of receiving unlawful compensation, use WPIC 115.16 (Receiving Unlawful Compensation—Elements) instead of this instruction.
Use bracketed material as applicable. With this instruction, use WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition), WPIC 2.11 (Government—Definition), and WPIC 2.22 (Public Servant—Definition).
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.68.030(1)(b).
There are no cases that address whether the holding of State v. O'Neill, 103 Wn.2d 853, 700 P.2d 711 (1985), applies to this offense. In O'Neill, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the bribery statute on the basis that the statute was overbroad for the reason that a person who paid money to a public servant with innocent intent could be charged with bribery under the statute. The court held that the statute was not overbroad because an implied element of corrupt intent could be read into the statute upon the assumption that the Legislature did not intend to proscribe any innocent or constitutionally protected activity. For further discussion of the O'Neill case, see State v. Greco, 57 Wn.App. 196, 787 P.2d 940 (1990), and the Comment to WPIC 115.02 (Bribery—Offering or Conferring—Elements).
[Current as of September 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |