WPIC 126.11 Disorderly Conduct—Not Involving Funeral or Burial—Elements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 126.11Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 126.11 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part XIII. Miscellaneous Crimes
WPIC CHAPTER 126. Public Disturbance
WPIC 126.11 Disorderly Conduct—Not Involving Funeral or Burial—Elements
To convict the defendant of the crime of disorderly conduct, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about (date), the defendant [used abusive language and thereby intentionally created a risk of assault] [or] [intentionally disrupted a lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority] [or] [intentionally obstructed vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority]; and
(2) That any of these acts occurred in the [State of Washington] [City of ] [County of ].
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 only when the charge is based on RCW 9A.84.030, and not when the charge is based on an ordinance having different language.
For cases involving disorderly conduct at a funeral or burial charged under RCW 9A.84.030(1)(d), use WPIC 126.11.01 (Disorderly Conduct—Funeral or Burial—Elements) instead of this instruction.
Use WPIC 10.01 (Intent—Intentionally—Definition) with this instruction. If applicable use WPIC 35.50 (Assault—Definition) with this instruction.
Use bracketed material as applicable. In element (2), choose from among the bracketed phrases depending on whether the case is in superior, municipal, or district court. See WPIC 4.20 (Introduction).
For a discussion of the phrase “any of these acts” 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.84.030.
As applied to speech, disorderly conduct statutes are constitutionally limited to “fighting words,” those that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” State v. Yoakum, 30 Wn.App. 874, 876, 638 P.2d 1264 (1982) (citing Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)). A fighting-words analysis involves three steps: (1) the words must be directed at a particular person or group of persons and there must be an addressee; (2) the words themselves must be personally abusive to the ordinary citizen and commonly known to be inherently likely to provoke violent reaction; and (3) the words must be viewed in the context or situation in which they were expressed. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wn.2d 49, 53, 701 P.2d 499 (1985) (citing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971)).
For cases limiting disorderly conduct in which words alone are the basis of the charge, see City of Spokane v. McDonough, 79 Wn.2d 351, 485 P.2d 449 (1971), City of Pasco v. Dixson, 81 Wn.2d 510, 503 P.2d 76 (1972), and State v. Montgomery, 31 Wn.App. 745, 644 P.2d 747 (1982).
[Current as of September 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |