Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 51946-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051946-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,746 chars

violating certain qualifying orders. 187 Wn.2d 85, 87, 384 P.3d 1140 (2016). The court stated,

“[W]hether the prior convictions met the qualifying statutory requirements is a threshold legal

determination to be made by the trial judge, not a question for the jury.” Id. at 92.

3. WPIC 130.10

The standard instruction for the definition of “written instrument” in the context of

forgery is contained in 11A WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY

INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 130.10 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). WPIC 130.10 does not contain a

further definition of “instrument” that includes a legal efficacy requirement.

The “Note on Use” for the instruction states, “If there is an issue for the jury regarding

whether the basis for the alleged forgery is an ‘instrument,’ an instruction may have to be crafted

based on the common law definition of the term. See the Comment below.” WPIC 130.10, note

on use. The comment to WPIC 130.10 explains the common law legal efficacy requirement but

then states, “Because issues of legal efficacy will generally be for the court to determine, rather

than the jury, the committee has not included the common law definition in the instruction.”

WPIC 130.10, comment (emphasis added).

4. Division One Unpublished Decision in Hill

In State v. Hill, No. 70742-6-I, slip op. at 10-16 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2014)

(unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/707426.pdf, Division One of this court

expressly addressed the issue presented here in a forgery case. The court held that the defendant

was entitled to have the jury instructed on the legal efficacy issue and that the jury rather that the

trial court must decide whether a written instrument has legal efficacy. Id. at 1, 12-16.