Opinion ID: 2629763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Jury Instructions Relieve the State of its Burden?

Text: Linehan contends that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court omitted the relationship or agreement requirement in the definition of theft by embezzlement. See former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b). The trial court purported to follow Washington Pattern Jury Instruction 79.02, which reads, in relevant part: [Wrongfully obtains means to take wrongfully the property or services of another.] [To exert unauthorized control means, having any property or services in one's possession, custody or control, as a ______, to secrete, withhold or appropriate the same to his or her own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.] . . . . 11A Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 79.02, at 110 (2d ed. 1994) (WPIC). The Note on Use states, use bracketed material as applicable. Id., note on use at 110. The blank in the second paragraph is to be filled in with the nature of the custodian of the property from the list set forth in former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b). Id. However, the instructions used by the trial court read as follows: Wrongfully obtains means to take wrongfully the property or services of another. To exert unauthorized control means, having any property or services in one's possession, custody or control, and to secrete, withhold or appropriate the same to his or her own use or to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto. Clerk's Papers at 78. The trial court failed to include a relationship as required by the statute. Jury instructions, taken in their entirety, must inform the jury that the State bears the burden of proving every essential element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pirtle, 127 Wash.2d 628, 656, 904 P.2d 245 (1995). Here, the trial court chose to use former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b) to define exerts unauthorized control. It is unclear why the trial court considered this definition at all based on the facts, since this was not an embezzlement case, as the prosecutor acknowledged at trial: [Prosecutor]: ... In this particular case we're talking about basically a theft and not embezzlement, as indicated, because in the embezzlement portion of it, it indicates a lot of different duties required by the employee-employer or however this case is The Court: I see, you took the last bracketed language. [Prosecutor]: And that's why that was not included. .... 4 Trial Proceedings at 26-27; see also id. at 28. The prosecutor presented no evidence of a special relationship or agreement between Linehan and Washington Mutual. Before the jury can be instructed on and allowed to consider the various ways of committing a crime, there must be sufficient evidence to support the instructions. State v. Golladay, 78 Wash.2d 121, 137, 470 P.2d 191 (1970). Since the trial court did use the embezzlement definition, it should have required the state to allege and prove the appropriate relationship or agreement between Linehan and Washington Mutual and instructed the jury accordingly. To do otherwise was to relieve the state of its burden to prove every element of the offense. Reversal is required unless the error was harmless.