State v. Nicholas
185 Wash. App. 298
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Scott Nicholas was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and use of drug paraphernalia.
- At trial the court gave the Washington Pattern Jury Instruction (WPIC) phrased as a "duty to return a verdict of guilty" when the elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Nicholas appealed, arguing the "duty to convict" instruction misstates the law and unconstitutionally infringes the jury’s power to acquit (jury nullification).
- The appellate court addressed only legal issues (facts deemed unimportant) and reviewed precedent from Washington appellate divisions about the instruction.
- The State conceded error on imposing a variable term of community custody; the court affirmed the convictions but accepted that concession.
Issues
| Issue | Nicholas' Argument | State/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of "duty to convict" jury instruction | The instruction, by using the word "duty," misleads jurors and infringes their constitutional power to acquit (nullify). | The instruction correctly states the law and is consistent with jury oath and judicial duty to declare law; nullification exists as power but should not be encouraged. | Instruction approved; prior Washington cases control — instruction is a correct statement of law and does not unconstitutionally compel jurors. |
| Constitutional protection for jury nullification under WA Constitution | WA Constitution's different language ("inviolate") establishes a right to nullify absent instruction to convict. | State argues Gunwall analysis and precedent reject a constitutional right to nullify and uphold duty instruction. | Rejected; Meggyesy/Gunwall analysis controls — state constitution does not require or protect jury nullification. |
| Whether courts must inform juries they "may" rather than "must" convict | Nicholas urges courts should avoid wording that suggests jurors "must" convict; he prefers informing jurors they "may" acquit. | Courts need not instruct juries about nullification; telling jurors they must follow law is appropriate. | Rejected; courts will not promote nullification and need not instruct juries on the power to acquit. |
| Enforceability and tension with rules protecting jury independence | Nicholas notes no enforcement exists for a jury’s alleged duty; other rules prohibit directing verdicts and probing deliberations. | Those protections preserve jury trial rights but do not entitle a defendant to educate jurors on nullification; jury oath and law favor instructing adherence to law. | Court acknowledges lack of enforcement but holds it does not invalidate duty instruction; jury protections remain but do not mandate nullification instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 179 Wn. App. 464 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (upholding "duty to convict" instruction in Division One)
- State v. Meggyesy, 90 Wn. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (thorough Gunwall analysis rejecting constitutional right to jury nullification)
- State v. Brown, 130 Wn. App. 767 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (Division Two approval of duty instruction)
- State v. Bonisisio, 92 Wn. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (Division Two addressed duty instruction)
- State v. Wilson, 176 Wn. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (Division Three considered the issue)
- State v. Elmore, 155 Wn.2d 758 (Wash. 2005) (discussion of jury nullification definition and limits)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (judge’s role in declaring law; jurors must apply law as instructed)
- Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1895) (Supreme Court held judges need not inform juries about nullification)