Court Opinion

ID: 9560706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:54:05.609302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:07.007956
License: Public Domain

Winsor, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent from the majority's determination that the jury instruction at issue ensured jury unanimity. Jury verdicts in Washington criminal cases are constitutionally required to be unanimous. State v. Badda, 63 Wn.2d 176, 385 P.2d 859 (1963). I cannot read the jury instruction given by the trial court
Evidence has been introduced of multiple acts of sexual contact between [A.] and the defendant.
Although the twelve of you need not agree that all the acts have been proved, you must unanimously agree that at least one particular act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
without believing that one or more of the jurors could reasonably have concluded that the "one particular act” she or he believed took place need not be the same "one particular act" that other jurors believed took place.
State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572, 683 P.2d 173 (1984), the governing authority for jury unanimity, requires that "all 12 jurors must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt". In this case, the key word in the Petrich rule, "same", was not a part of the trial court's instruction.4 Under the *442instruction given, therefore, we cannot be sure that all of the jury agreed upon the same underlying act.
I do not find comfort in the grammatical analysis of the instruction by the majority. An instruction is sufficiently clear if it can be readily, understood and is not misleading to the ordinary mind. State v. Dana, 73 Wn.2d 533, 537, 439 P.2d 403 (1968). I do not believe that ordinary jurors are likely to interpret a jury instruction on the basis of subjects, verbs, and objects. Rather, the ordinary juror is more likely to read the instruction as a whole. Taken as a whole, the instruction at issue can be interpreted either as the majority has or as I believe a juror may.
I therefore respectfully dissent. I would reverse and remand for new trial.
Review denied by Supreme Court September 1, 1988.

An example of an instruction more reflective of Petrich is:
Evidence has been introduced of multiple acts of sexual contact between [A.] and the defendant.
*442To convict the defendant it is not necessary that you find all of the acts have been proven, but it is necessary that the jury unanimously agree that the same, one particular act has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe that in future cases this instruction should be given.