WPIC 160.00 Concluding Instruction—Special Verdict—Penalty Enhancements
11A WAPRAC WPIC 160.00Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
11A Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 160.00 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Part XIV. Concluding Instructions
WPIC 160.00 Concluding Instruction—Special Verdict—Penalty Enhancements
You will also be given [a special verdict form] [special verdict forms] [for the crime of (insert name of crime)] [for the crime[s] charged in count[s] ]. If you find the defendant not guilty [of this crime] [of these crimes] [of (insert name of crime)] do not use the special verdict form[s]. If you find the defendant guilty [of this crime] [of these crimes] [of (insert name of crime)], you will then use the special verdict form[s] and fill in the blank with the answer “yes” or “no” according to the decision you reach. In order to answer the special verdict form[s] “yes,” you must unanimously be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that “yes” is the correct answer. If you unanimously agree that the answer to the question is “no,” you must fill in the blank with the answer “no.” If after full and fair consideration of the evidence you are not in agreement as to the answer, then do not fill in the blank for that question.
NOTE ON USE
For cases involving a sentencing enhancement, insert this paragraph immediately ahead of the last paragraph in the concluding instruction WPIC 151.00 (Basic Concluding Instruction) or WPIC 155.00 (Concluding Instruction—Lesser Degree/Lesser Included/Attempt), whichever is being used.
Use the appropriate verdict form when this paragraph is included in the concluding instruction. See the special verdict forms found in WPIC Chapter 190 (Special Verdict Forms).
Choose from among the bracketed options within the instruction's first three sentences in order to provide the clearest directions to the jury, taking into account such considerations as the number of charges and the existence of lesser included offenses.
COMMENT
Unanimity issue. The jury must be unanimous in order to answer “yes” to a special verdict question about the grounds for a sentence enhancement. State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888, 892–93, 72 P.3d 1083 (2003).
The jury must also be unanimous in order to answer “no.” State v. Guzman Nuñez, 174 Wn.2d 707, 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (holding that unanimity is required to answer “no” to a special verdict question about an aggravating circumstance). The decision in Guzman Nuñez overruled a contrary holding issued two years earlier in State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133, 234 P.3d 195 (2010). The Guzman Nuñez court upheld an instruction that required unanimity for either answer and that directed jurors to leave the question unanswered if they were unable to agree on a verdict.
[Current as of January 2019.]
Westlaw. © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |