Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403 (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) It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:
(a) To distribute as a registrant a controlled substance classified in Schedules I or II, except pursuant to an order form as required by *RCW 69.50.307;
(b) To use in the course of the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance, or to use for the purpose of acquiring or obtaining a controlled substance, a registration number which is fictitious, revoked, suspended, or issued to another person;
(c) To obtain or attempt to obtain a controlled substance, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a controlled substance, (i) by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge; or (ii) by forgery or alteration of a prescription or any written order; or (iii) by the concealment of material fact; or (iv) by the use of a false name or the giving of a false address;
(d) To falsely assume the title of, or represent herself or himself to be, a manufacturer, wholesaler, pharmacist, physician, dentist, veterinarian, or other authorized person for the purpose of obtaining a controlled substance;
(e) To make or utter any false or forged prescription or false or forged written order;
(f) To affix any false or forged label to a package or receptacle containing controlled substances;
(g) To furnish false or fraudulent material information in, or omit any material information from, any application, report, or other document required to be kept or filed under this chapter, or any record required to be kept by this chapter;
(h) To possess a false or fraudulent prescription with intent to obtain a controlled substance; or
(i) To attempt to illegally obtain controlled substances by providing more than one name to a practitioner when obtaining a prescription for a controlled substance. If a person's name is legally changed during the time period that he or she is receiving health care from a practitioner, the person shall inform all providers of care so that the medical and pharmacy records for the person may be filed under a single name identifier.
(2) Information communicated to a practitioner in an effort unlawfully to procure a controlled substance or unlawfully to procure the administration of such substance, shall not be deemed a privileged communication.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than two years, or fined not more than two thousand dollars, or both.
[ 2003 c 53 s 339; 1996 c 255 s 1; 1993 c 187 s 21; 1971 ex.s. c 308 s 69.50.403.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 69.50.307 was repealed by 2001 c 248 s 2.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: State v. Bundy, 587 P.2d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bundy, 587 P.2d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 14× “One, did the trial court correctly construe RCW 69.50.403? Two, is the order of dismissal after the defense has rested, the legal equivalent of an acquittal so that an appeal by the State is barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States…”
State v. Austin, 716 P.2d 875 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 7× “RCW 69.50.403 talks about attempted [violation of the UCSA and a violation of the UCSA] in the same light and the same penalty.”
State v. Donald, 844 P.2d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “Donald's contention the trial court erred in failing to give a criminal impersonation instruction.”
State v. Lynn, 835 P.2d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “2d 875 (1986) (the general attempt statute penalty provisions do not apply when the defendant is charged with an attempt pursuant to RCW 69.50.403). In Austin , the general attempt statute was in direct conflict with RCW 69.”
State v. Robbins, 547 P.2d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “She was subsequently charged with uttering a forged prescription for a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.403 (a) (5). Her written and oral statements were admitted into evidence at the trial; the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.”
State v. Barringer, 650 P.2d 1129 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “Although the charging *888 statute, RCW 69.50.403(a)(5), did not require reference to a controlled substance, by including that reference in the information and in the instructions, it became the law of the case and the State had the burden of proving it.”
State v. Roby, 840 P.2d 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 206 (1984) (RCW 69.50.403, the specific attempt statute, controls over the general attempt statute, RCW 9A.”
In Re Pers. Restraint Petition of Hopkins, 948 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “may be imprisoned for not more than two years”); RCW 69.50.403(c) (“[a] person who violates this section .”
State v. Long, 578 P.2d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “" The information charged Dow with a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, RCW 69.50.403(a)(3), in that he did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously obtain a controlled substance, to-wit: ritalin, by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and subterfuge; and by the use…”
State v. Boyer, 576 P.2d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “308 and RCW 69.50.403. Thus, we have held the presumption of ''willfullness,'' to which a defense of "unwitting" may be asserted, is a common-law presumption and not a statutory presumption.”
State v. Howell, 102 Wash. App. 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “401(d)) or forged prescription for a controlled substance (RCW 69.50.403); *293 Delivery of cocaine is a drug offense.”
State v. Austin, 692 P.2d 206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “RCW 69.50.403 talks about attempted VUCSA and VUCSA in the same light and the same penalty.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(1) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Michael Todd Forest (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Kiel Noel Dent, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(1)(c) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Michael Todd Forest (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
State of Washington v. Cathe Lynn McNeill (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(3) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. James Henry Shriver (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(a) — 2 cases
State v. Robbins, 547 P.2d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “She was subsequently charged with uttering a forged prescription for a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.403 (a) (5). Her written and oral statements were admitted into evidence at the trial; the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.”
State v. Bundy, 587 P.2d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “One, did the trial court correctly construe RCW 69.50.403? Two, is the order of dismissal after the defense has rested, the legal equivalent of an acquittal so that an appeal by the State is barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(a)(3) — 9 cases
State v. Austin, 716 P.2d 875 (Wash. 1986). “RCW 69.50.403 talks about attempted [violation of the UCSA and a violation of the UCSA] in the same light and the same penalty.”
State v. Donald, 844 P.2d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Donald's contention the trial court erred in failing to give a criminal impersonation instruction.”
State v. Long, 578 P.2d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “" The information charged Dow with a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, RCW 69.50.403(a)(3), in that he did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously obtain a controlled substance, to-wit: ritalin, by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and subterfuge; and by the use…”
State Of Washington v. Jacklynn Cuba Wilson, 481 P.3d 614 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Austin, 692 P.2d 206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “RCW 69.50.403 talks about attempted VUCSA and VUCSA in the same light and the same penalty.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(a)(3)(iv) — 1 case
State v. Bundy, 587 P.2d 562 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “One, did the trial court correctly construe RCW 69.50.403? Two, is the order of dismissal after the defense has rested, the legal equivalent of an acquittal so that an appeal by the State is barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(a)(5) — 2 cases
State v. Barringer, 650 P.2d 1129 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “Although the charging *888 statute, RCW 69.50.403(a)(5), did not require reference to a controlled substance, by including that reference in the information and in the instructions, it became the law of the case and the State had the burden of proving it.”
State v. Rivas, 746 P.2d 312 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.403(c) — 1 case
In Re Pers. Restraint Petition of Hopkins, 948 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “may be imprisoned for not more than two years”); RCW 69.50.403(c) (“[a] person who violates this section .”
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.