Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 40.16.020 (2026)

Injury to and misappropriation of record

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate, or falsify any record or paper appertaining to the officer's office, or who shall fraudulently appropriate to the officer's own use or to the use of another person, or secrete with intent to appropriate to such use, any money, evidence of debt or other property intrusted to the officer by virtue of the officer's office, is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.

[ 2003 c 53 s 215; 1992 c 7 s 35; 1909 c 249 s 96; RRS s 2348.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Lee v. Jasman, 332 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lee v. Jasman, 332 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “2d 1346 (1992), Juanita Korba appealed her conviction for injury to or misappropriation of a record on the ground she was not a “public officer” under RCW 40.16.020. The statute punished “[e]very officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate, or falsify any…”

In re the Recall of Feetham, 72 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 3× “070, RCW 40.16.020, RCW 9A.56.050, and of his oath of office.”

In Re Recall Charges Against Feetham, 72 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 3× “070, RCW 40.16.020, RCW 9A.56.050, and of his oath of office.”

Matsen v. Kaiser, 443 P.2d 843 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 4× “More than 1 year later, by supplemental information, the prosecuting attorney charged him with violating RCW 40.16.020, during his term as sheriff, i.”

State v. Korba, 832 P.2d 1346 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “She contends that she was improperly charged because she was not a public officer under RCW 40.16.020. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the verdicts, the reasonableness of the search for evidence, the failure to provide her with union…”

Kitsap Cnty. v. Smith, 143 Wash. App. 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 40.16.020. ¶41 Chapter 40.16 RCW, entitled “Penal Provisions,” establishes the criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or fraudulent appropriation of records or documents for one’s own or another’s use.”

State v. Holt, 324 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1958). “RCW 40.16.020. He claims the trial court erred (1) in failing to sustain a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, on the ground that the state failed to prove ownership of the property as alleged, i.”

Kitsap Cnty. v. Smith, 180 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 40.16.020. ¶ 41 Chapter 40.16 RCW, entitled "Penal Provisions," establishes the criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or fraudulent appropriation of records or documents for one's own or another's use.”

In re Recall of Hatcher, 478 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 5× “16.020 it is a gross misdemeanor to “fraudulently appropriate to the officer’s own use or to the use of another person, or secrete with intent to appropriate to such use, any money, evidence of debt or other property intrusted to the officer by virtue of the officer’s office.”

D. Angus Lee v. Jerry Jasman (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “2d 1346 (1992), Juanita Korba appealed her conviction· for injury to or misappropriation of a record on the ground she was not a "public officer" under RCW 40.16.020. The statute punished "every officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate or falsity any…”

Jamie Nixon, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 40.16.020 states in part, Every officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase, obliterate, or falsify any record or paper appertaining to the officer’s office, or who shall fraudulently appropriate to the officer’s own use or to the use of another person, or secrete…”

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.