WPIC 115.51 Intimidating a Witness—Threat to Former Witness—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 115.51Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 115.51 (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 115.51 Intimidating a Witness—Threat to Former Witness—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of intimidating a witness, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant directed a threat to a former witness because of the witness's role in an official proceeding; and
(2) That this act 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
If the defendant is charged with intimidating a current or prospective witness, rather than a former witness, use WPIC 115.51.01 (Intimidating a Witness—Threat to Current or Prospective Witness—Elements) instead of this instruction.
With this instruction, use WPIC 115.52 (Intimidating a Witness—Threat—Definition) and WPIC 115.54 (Intimidating a Witness—Former Witness—Definition). WPIC 118.16 (Official Proceeding—Definition) may also be used.
For a discussion of the phrase “this act” in element (2), see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.72.110(2).
In 2011, the Legislature amended the statute to provide that “each instance of an attempt to intimidate a witness constitutes a separate offense,” abrograting State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726, 230 P.3d 1048 (2010). RCW 9A.72.110(5).
To commit this offense, the defendant must communicate a threat to someone. State v. Ozuna, 184 Wn.2d 238, 359 P.3d 739 (2015). The court held that a threat uttered or written in private, and not communicated to either the victim or a third-party, was not a violation of the statute.
[Current as of September 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |