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

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.415 (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 person who unlawfully delivers a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.401(2) (a), (b), or (c) which controlled substance is subsequently used by the person to whom it was delivered, resulting in the death of the user, is guilty of controlled substances homicide.
(2) Controlled substances homicide is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
[ 2003 c 53 s 343; 1996 c 205 s 8; 1987 c 458 s 2.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Severability—1987 c 458: See note following RCW 48.21.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: State v. Zillyette, 307 P.3d 712 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Zillyette, 307 P.3d 712 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 5× “401, which controlled substance was subsequently used by Austin Burrows, resulting in his death; CONTRARY TO RCW 69.50.415 and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.”
State v. Christman, 160 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Christman’s appeal proceeds from the premises (1) that the controlled substances homicide statute, RCW 69.50.415, requires that the State prove that a victim’s death was proximately caused by a controlled substance delivered by the defendant and (2) that the State did not prove…”
State v. Christman, 249 P.3d 680 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Christman's appeal proceeds from the premises (1) that the controlled substances homicide statute, RCW 69.50.415, requires that the State prove that a victim's death was proximately caused by a controlled substance delivered by the defendant and (2) that the State did not prove…”
State v. Dyer, 811 P.2d 975 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Dyer appeals her exceptional sentence of 120 months, which the Superior Court imposed following her plea of guilty to the crime of controlled substances homicide, a violation of RCW 69.50.415(a). [1] She contends the sentence, which is the maximum term for this crime, is clearly…”
State v. Bernal, 33 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “According to RCW 69.50.415, a person is guilty of that crime if he or she unlawfully delivers heroin that “is subsequently used by the person to whom it was delivered, resulting in the death of the user.”
State v. Morgan, 936 P.2d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Morgan maintains the statutes are concurrent and a person who distributes cocaine and causes death must be charged with the more specific statute, with controlled substances homicide.”
State v. Zillyette, 256 P.3d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “RCW 69.50.415. Zillyette argues that the State failed to produce sufficient independent evidence of delivery, likening this case to State v.”
State v. Zillyette, 278 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “401, which controlled substance was subsequently used by Austin Burrows, resulting in his death; Contrary to RCW 69.50.415 and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.”
State v. Bauer, 295 P.3d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 69.50.415(1). RCW 9A.56.200(l)(a)(iii).”
State Of Washington v. Allison C. Poor (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” RCW 69.50.415. 6 No. 52683-2-II possession” over the home.”
State v. Zillyette (Wash. 2013). · cites it 5× “401, which controlled substance was subsequently used by Austin Burrows, resulting in his death; CONTRARY TO RCW 69.50.415 and against the peace and dignity ofthe State of Washington.”
State of Washington v. Jeffery Robert May (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “which controlled substance is subsequently used by the person to whom it was delivered, resulting in the death of the user, is guilty of controlled substances homicide.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.415(1) — 11 cases
State v. Zillyette, 307 P.3d 712 (Wash. 2013). “401, which controlled substance was subsequently used by Austin Burrows, resulting in his death; CONTRARY TO RCW 69.50.415 and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.”
State v. Christman, 160 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Christman’s appeal proceeds from the premises (1) that the controlled substances homicide statute, RCW 69.50.415, requires that the State prove that a victim’s death was proximately caused by a controlled substance delivered by the defendant and (2) that the State did not prove…”
State v. Christman, 249 P.3d 680 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Christman's appeal proceeds from the premises (1) that the controlled substances homicide statute, RCW 69.50.415, requires that the State prove that a victim's death was proximately caused by a controlled substance delivered by the defendant and (2) that the State did not prove…”
State v. Zillyette, 256 P.3d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 69.50.415. Zillyette argues that the State failed to produce sufficient independent evidence of delivery, likening this case to State v.”
State v. Zillyette, 278 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “401, which controlled substance was subsequently used by Austin Burrows, resulting in his death; Contrary to RCW 69.50.415 and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.415(2) — 1 case
State v. Zillyette, 278 P.3d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “401, which controlled substance was subsequently used by Austin Burrows, resulting in his death; Contrary to RCW 69.50.415 and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.415(a) — 1 case
State v. Dyer, 811 P.2d 975 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Dyer appeals her exceptional sentence of 120 months, which the Superior Court imposed following her plea of guilty to the crime of controlled substances homicide, a violation of RCW 69.50.415(a). [1] She contends the sentence, which is the maximum term for this crime, is clearly…”
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.