Washington State DUI

WPIC 5.01 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

WPIC 5.01

The evidence that has been presented to you may be either direct or circumstantial. The term “direct evidence” refers to evidence that is given by a witness who has directly perceived something at issue in this case. The term “circumstantial evidence” refers to evidence from which, based on your common sense and experience, you may reasonably infer something that is at issue in this case.

The law does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence in terms of their weight or value in finding the facts in this case. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.

WPIC 5.20 Failure to Produce Witness

If a person who could have been a witness at the trial is not called to testify, you may be able to infer that the person's testimony would have been unfavorable to a party in the case. You may draw this inference only if you find that:

(1) The witness is within the control of, or peculiarly available to, that party;

(2) The issue on which the person could have testified is an issue of fundamental importance, rather than one that is trivial or insignificant;

(3) As a matter of reasonable probability, it appears naturally in the interest of that party to call the person as a witness;

(4) There is no satisfactory explanation of why the party did not call the person as a witness; and

(5) The inference is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.

The parties in this case are the [State of Washington][County of ][City of ] and (name of defendant).

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2388
Seattle, Washington 98154