Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) In its dispositional order, the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the respondent. In addition, restitution may be ordered for loss or damage if the offender pleads guilty to a lesser offense or fewer offenses and agrees with the prosecutor's recommendation that the offender be required to pay restitution to a victim of an offense or offenses which, pursuant to a plea agreement, are not prosecuted.
(b) Restitution may include the costs of counseling reasonably related to the offense.
(c) The payment of restitution shall be in addition to any punishment which is imposed pursuant to the other provisions of this chapter.
(d) The court may determine the amount, terms, and conditions of the restitution including a payment plan extending up to ten years if the court determines that the respondent does not have the means to make full restitution over a shorter period. If the court determines that a juvenile has insufficient funds to pay and upon agreement of the victim, the court may order performance of a number of hours of community restitution in lieu of monetary penalty, at the rate of the then state minimum wage per hour. The court shall allow the victim to determine the nature of the community restitution to be completed when it is practicable and appropriate to do so. For the purposes of this section, the respondent shall remain under the court's jurisdiction for a maximum term of ten years after the respondent's eighteenth birthday and, during this period, the restitution portion of the dispositional order may be modified as to amount, terms, and conditions at any time. Prior to the expiration of the ten-year period, the juvenile court may extend the judgment for the payment of restitution for an additional ten years. If the court grants a respondent's petition pursuant to RCW 13.50.260, the court's jurisdiction under this subsection shall terminate.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prevent a respondent from petitioning the court pursuant to RCW 13.50.260 if the respondent has paid the full restitution amount stated in the court's order and has met the statutory criteria.
(f) If the respondent participated in the crime with another person or other persons, the court may either order joint and several restitution or may divide restitution equally among the respondents. In determining whether restitution should be joint and several or equally divided, the court shall consider the interest and circumstances of the victim or victims, the circumstances of the respondents, and the interest of justice.
(g) At any time, the court may determine that the respondent is not required to pay, or may relieve the respondent of the requirement to pay, full or partial restitution to any insurance provider authorized under Title 48 RCW if the respondent reasonably satisfies the court that he or she does not have the means to make full or partial restitution to the insurance provider.
(2) Regardless of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the court shall order restitution in all cases where the victim is entitled to benefits under the crime victims' compensation act, chapter 7.68 RCW. If the court does not order restitution and the victim of the crime has been determined to be entitled to benefits under the crime victims' compensation act, the department of labor and industries, as administrator of the crime victims' compensation program, may petition the court within one year of entry of the disposition order for entry of a restitution order. Upon receipt of a petition from the department of labor and industries, the court shall hold a restitution hearing and shall enter a restitution order.
(3) If an order includes restitution as one of the monetary assessments, the county clerk shall make disbursements to victims named in the order. The restitution to victims named in the order shall be paid prior to any payment for other penalties or monetary assessments. The county clerk shall make restitution disbursements to victims prior to payments to any insurance provider under Title 48 RCW.
(4) For purposes of this section, "victim" means any person who has sustained emotional, psychological, physical, or financial injury to person or property as a direct result of the offense charged. "Victim" may also include a known parent or guardian of a victim who is a minor child or is not a minor child but is incapacitated, incompetent, disabled, or deceased.
(5) A respondent under obligation to pay restitution may petition the court for modification of the restitution order for good cause shown, including inability to pay.
[ 2015 c 265 s 6; 2014 c 175 s 7; 2010 c 134 s 1; 2004 c 120 s 6. Prior: 1997 c 338 s 29; 1997 c 121 s 9; 1996 c 124 s 2; 1995 c 33 s 5; 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 528; 1987 c 281 s 5; 1985 c 257 s 2; 1983 c 191 s 9; 1979 c 155 s 69; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 73.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2015 c 265: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Findings—Intent—2014 c 175: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Effective date—2004 c 120: See note following RCW 13.40.010.
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Effective date—1987 c 281: See note following RCW 7.68.020.
Severability—1985 c 257: See note following RCW 13.34.165.
Effective date—Severability—1979 c 155: See notes following RCW 13.04.011.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. J.P., 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. J.P., 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 30× “190(1) had occurred later in time than the 1977 enactment of the definition. Landrum, 66 Wn.”
State v. JP, 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 30× “, because RCW 13.40.190 comes after RCW 13.40.020) and was "clear and specific as to counseling"; moreover, as the court noted, the 1987 amendment to RCW 13.”
State v. Hunotte, 851 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “Restitution in juvenile cases is governed by RCW 13.40.190, which provides in pertinent part: (1) In its dispositional order, the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the…”
State v. Hiett, 115 P.3d 274 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 4× “RCW 13.40.190 authorizes joint and several responsibility for restitution for all participants in the crime to which the damages can be causally connected: the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of…”
State v. Hiett, 154 Wash. 2d 560 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 4× “RCW 13.40.190 authorizes joint *568 and several responsibility for restitution for all participants in the crime to which the damages can be causally connected: the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result…”
State v. A.M.R., 51 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “RCW 13.40.190. Because of the State’s interests in accountability and restitution in juvenile cases, it is “aggrieved” within the meaning of RCW 13.”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “" See RCW 13.40.190; see also Laws of 1983, ch.”
State v. Tejada, 971 P.2d 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “Arguing that RCW 13.40.190 grants jurisdiction over a juvenile offender for 10 years beyond his or her 18th birthday for the purposes of collecting restitution, and that RCW 13.”
State v. Landrum, 832 P.2d 1359 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “At a restitution hearing, the juvenile court ordered restitution in the amount of $892 for the victim's counseling expenses and $16 for a medical examination of the victim's hymen.”
State v. Sanchez, 869 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “Sanchez’s only objection at trial was that insurance companies, as third parties contractually obligated to reimburse their clients for losses, are not "persons” intended to recover under RCW 13.40.190(1). Neither "person” nor "victim” is defined in RCW 13.”
State v. Steward, 760 P.2d 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “2 Under RCW 13.40.190, the scope of restitution is limited to the losses resulting from the precise offense charged.”
State v. Donahoe, 105 Wash. App. 97 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “RCW 13.40.190. Unlike the situation in Ashley, where the damage occurred before Ashley committed the offense, the damage here occurred contemporaneously with and as a direct result of Bobby’s possession of the stolen car.”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(1) — 37 cases
State v. J.P., 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003). “190(1) had occurred later in time than the 1977 enactment of the definition. Landrum, 66 Wn.”
State v. JP, 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003). “, because RCW 13.40.190 comes after RCW 13.40.020) and was "clear and specific as to counseling"; moreover, as the court noted, the 1987 amendment to RCW 13.”
State v. Hiett, 115 P.3d 274 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 13.40.190 authorizes joint and several responsibility for restitution for all participants in the crime to which the damages can be causally connected: the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of…”
State v. Hiett, 154 Wash. 2d 560 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 13.40.190 authorizes joint *568 and several responsibility for restitution for all participants in the crime to which the damages can be causally connected: the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result…”
State v. Hunotte, 851 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Restitution in juvenile cases is governed by RCW 13.40.190, which provides in pertinent part: (1) In its dispositional order, the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(1)(a) — 5 cases
State Of Washington v. V.o., 8/21/99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State Of Washington v. D'yani Allen (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State Of Washington v. J.r. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State Of Washington, V C. N. T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington V. G.s. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(1)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. B. J. N. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. R.G.P., 302 P.3d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State Of Washington, V E.A.S. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(1)(f) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. D'yani Allen (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(1)(g) — 3 cases
State of Washington v. Aaron Ata Toleafoa (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington v. D.l.w. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington v. N.a.f., 11/8/95 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(2) — 4 cases
State v. Bush, 659 P.2d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983).
State Of Washington, V. E.t-s.w. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. J.c.s. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington v. B. J. N. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(3) — 3 cases
State v. Sanchez, 869 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Sanchez’s only objection at trial was that insurance companies, as third parties contractually obligated to reimburse their clients for losses, are not "persons” intended to recover under RCW 13.40.190(1). Neither "person” nor "victim” is defined in RCW 13.”
State v. Fambrough, 831 P.2d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Bennett, 821 P.2d 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.190(g) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. D.l.w. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.