Home Table of Contents

WPIC 120.26 Escape—First Degree—Elements

11A WAPRAC WPIC 120.26Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 120.26 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part XIII. Miscellaneous Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 120. Obstructing Governmental Operation
WPIC 120.26 Escape—First Degree—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of escape in the first degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant escaped from [custody] [or] [a detention facility];
(2) That the defendant was being detained pursuant to a conviction of [(name of felony)] [a felony] [or] [the juvenile offense of (name of offense)] [a juvenile offense that is the equivalent of a felony];
(3) That the defendant knew that [his] [her] actions would result in leaving confinement without permission; and
(4) 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
Use this instruction when the defendant is charged with escape under RCW 9A.76.110. See the Comment below. With this instruction use WPIC 10.02 (Knowledge—Knowingly—Definition).
For a discussion of the phrase “this act” in element (4), see WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and the Note on Use to WPIC 4.21 (Elements of the Crime—Form).
COMMENT
RCW 9A.76.110.
This instruction has been revised for this edition to conform to the statutory language by adding two bracketed alternatives to element (2).
In a prosecution for first degree escape, the State is required to prove an element of knowledge; i.e., that the defendant knew that his or her actions would result in leaving confinement without permission. The State, however, is not required to prove that the defendant left custody with an intent to avoid confinement. State v. Descoteaux, 94 Wn.2d 31, 614 P.2d 179 (1980), overruled on other grounds by State v. Danforth, 97 Wn.2d 255, 643 P.2d 882 (1982). Also see State v. Hall, 104 Wn.2d 486, 706 P.2d 1074 (1985).
A defendant charged with escape will not be permitted to challenge the legality of his confinement at the escape trial. State v. Gonzales, 103 Wn.2d 564, 693 P.2d 119 (1985).
The opinions in State v. Brooks, 157 Wn.App. 258, 236 P.3d 250 (2010), State v. Walls, 106 Wn.App. 792, 25 P.3d 1052 (2001), and State v. Perencevic, 54 Wn.App. 585, 774 P.2d 558 (1989), discuss what constitutes being detained pursuant to a conviction for a felony.
An escape conviction does not depend upon the ultimate success of the defendant's flight. State v. Bryant, 25 Wn.App. 635, 608 P.2d 1261 (1980).
A person “escapes from custody” when he or she fails to be physically present at the time and place where he or she is legally obligated to be in custody. State v. Ammons, 136 Wn.2d 453, 963 P.2d 812 (1998). “Custody” includes “any period of service on a work crew.” State v. Ammons, 136 Wn.2d at 457 (citing RCW 9A.76.010(1)).
The admissibility and validity of a prior offense is a question of law to be determined by the trial court. State v. Chambers, 157 Wn.App. 465, 237 P.3d 351 (2010).
Stipulations. For a discussion of Old Chief stipulations, see State v. Ortega, 134 Wn.App. 617, 142 P.3d 175 (2006); see also State v. Roswell, 165 Wn.2d 186, 195–98, 196 P.3d 705 (2008). Further discussion is contained in the Comment to WPIC 4.78 (Stipulation of Prior Offense (“Old Chief Stipulation”)).
[Current as of September 2019.]
End of Document