Opinion ID: 2959723
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background on the Petrich instruction

Text: In the trial that gave rise to the Petrich instruction, the State presented evidence of numerous incidents of sexual contact [that] were described in varying detail. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d at 568. Despite presenting at least four distinct incidents and evidence indicating an unknown number of additional incidents, the State charged Petrich with only one count each of indecent liberties and statutory rape. At the close of evidence, the defense moved to compel the State to elect the specific act on which it relied for conviction. The court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant of both statutory rape and indecent liberties. This court held that the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to compel election deprived the defendant of his right to a unanimous verdict, setting forth what became known as the Petrich rule: 8 State v. C~rson (David), No. 90308-5 When the evidence indicates that several distinct criminal acts have been committed, but defendant is charged with only one count of criminal conduct, jury unanimity must be protected .... The State may, in its discretion, elect the act upon which it will rely for conviction. Alternatively, if the jury is instructed that all 12 jurors must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a unanimous verdict on one criminal act will be assured. /d. at 572. The Petrich instruction was later incorporated into the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions. 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE: WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 4.25, at 110-12 (3d ed. 2008) (WPIC). 5 The WPIC's note on use for the Petrich instruction states that the instruction should be used when the evidence indicates that several distinct criminal acts have been committed, but the defendant is charged with only one count of criminal conduct. See 11 WPIC note on use at 110. The WPIC instruction reflects the single-count roots of Petrich, instructing the jury that it must find that one particular act was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and must unanimously agree as to which act has been proved. /d. at 110.