WPIC 190.10 Special Verdict Form—Jurisdiction

This special verdict form will rarely be needed. The verdict form would be used under special circumstances, such as when federal, tribal, or another state's jurisdiction is at issue. For further discussion of special circumstances, see the Comment. It is not needed for the usual case in which the only issue is whether the acts occurred within the state (for superior courts), within the city (for municipal courts), or within the county (for district courts).

More than one question may be needed. If so, the directions to the jurors will need to be modified.

Special circumstances. Judges may need to use special jury interrogatories to address jurisdictional issues specially raised by the defense. See discussion in WPIC 4.20 (Introduction) and in the Comment to WPIC 165.00 (Concluding Instruction—Special Verdict—Jurisdiction). Special jurisdictional issues may include challenges based on exclusive jurisdiction of a federal or tribal court, expiration of the statutory limitation period, application of the criminal long-arm statute (RCW 9A.04.030), or immunity from prosecution.

Sample questions for interrogatory. The question or questions for the jury interrogatory will need to be carefully drafted to address the factual foundation relating to the defendant's jurisdictional challenge. The WPI Committee sets forth the following generic examples of jurisdictional questions:

For each case, however, these generic examples should be modified to more specifically identify the acts in question.

Lack of unanimity. In 2014, the WPI Committee supplemented the instruction with language directing jurors to send the judge a note if they are unable to reach a unanimous decision about the jurisdictional facts. This language was added to provide the trial judge with an opportunity to decide whether the case should proceed. If jurors are unable to reach unanimity, then the trial judge may decide whether to declare a mistrial or to direct the jurors to go ahead and deliberate on the charged offense.

Double jeopardy. Practitioners are advised to carefully consider the double jeopardy implications when drafting special instructions on jurisdiction and when deciding how to handle a jury's lack of unanimity. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment bars the State from trying a person twice for the same criminal offense. E.g., State v. Walters, 146 Wn.App. 138, 145, 188 P.3d 540 (2008). A defendant's double jeopardy rights are violated if (1) jeopardy for a criminal offense previously attached, (2) that jeopardy then terminated, and (3) the defendant is again placed in jeopardy for the same offense. State v. Walters, 146 Wn.App. at 145; State v. Corrado, 81 Wn.App. 640, 645, 915 P.2d 1121 (1996). The application of double jeopardy principles to jurisdictional issues is particularly difficult. See State v. Corrado, 81 Wn.App. at 649–62 (addressing an exception for cases involving certain jurisdictional issues and quoting a Second Circuit opinion that describes the jurisdictional double jeopardy issues as being a “jurisprudential greased pig”). The Corrado opinion includes an extended discussion of these issues.