Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.160 (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 shall be unlawful for any person to threaten to bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building, any place of worship or public assembly, any governmental property, or any other building, common carrier, or structure, or any place used for human occupancy; or to communicate or repeat any information concerning such a threatened bombing or injury, knowing such information to be false and with intent to alarm the person or persons to whom the information is communicated or repeated.
(2) It shall not be a defense to any prosecution under this section that the threatened bombing or injury was a hoax.
(3) A violation of this section is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
Notes:
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: State v. Johnston, 127 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2006).
State v. Johnston, 127 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 4 Johnston was charged with threats to bomb or injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. [1] Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court instructed the jury that "[t]hreat means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to wrongfully cause physical damage to…”
State v. Johnston, 156 Wash. 2d 355 (Wash. 2006). “¶4 Johnston was charged with threats to bomb or injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. 1 Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury that “[t]hreat means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to wrongfully cause physical damage to…”
State v. Edwards, 924 P.2d 397 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “A jury convicted Edwards of threatening *8 to injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s instructions, and the constitutionality of the statute.”
State v. Allen, 294 P.3d 679 (Wash. 2013). “3d 707 (2006), we found that Washington’s bomb threat statute, RCW 9.61.160, reached a substantial amount of protected speech.”
State v. Brown, 748 P.2d 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Donald Fredric Brown appeals his conviction for threats to bomb or injure property pursuant to RCW 9.61.160, a gross misdemeanor. We affirm.”
State v. Schaler, 169 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2010). “We recently interpreted the bomb *284 threat statute, RCW 9.61.160, to reach only “true threats” in order to save it from a constitutional challenge.”
State v. Vermillion, 51 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[5] RCW 9.61.160Threats to bomb or injure property provides: It shall be unlawful for any person to threaten to bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building, any place of worship or public assembly, any governmental property, or any other building, common…”
State v. Vermillion, 112 Wash. App. 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 9.61.160 — -Threats to bomb or injure property provides: It shall be unlawful for any person to threaten to bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building, any place of worship or public assembly, any governmental property, or any other building, common…”
State v. Tellez, 141 Wash. App. 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Johnston reversing a conviction under the bomb threat statute, RCW 9.61.160, for failure to define “true threat” for the jury.”
State v. Cross, 234 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “We do not distinguish between threats against property and people and the Edwards holding applies equally to cases involving harassing conditional threats made against a person.”
State v. Tellez, 170 P.3d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Johnston reversing a conviction under the bomb threat statute, RCW 9.61.160, for failure to define true threat for the jury.”
State v. Young, 523 P.2d 934 (Wash. 1974). “The trial court found defendant guilty of threatening to bomb or otherwise injure a public building in violation of RCW 9.61.160. 1 He appeals. Defendant’s first three assignments of error stem from a contention that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.160(1) — 7 cases
State v. Johnston, 127 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 4 Johnston was charged with threats to bomb or injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. [1] Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court instructed the jury that "[t]hreat means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to wrongfully cause physical damage to…”
State v. Johnston, 156 Wash. 2d 355 (Wash. 2006). “¶4 Johnston was charged with threats to bomb or injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. 1 Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury that “[t]hreat means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to wrongfully cause physical damage to…”
State v. Hendrickson, 311 P.3d 41 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State Of Washington, V. Cale Byers (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Joel Christopher Holmes (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.160(2) — 2 cases
State v. Johnston, 127 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 4 Johnston was charged with threats to bomb or injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. [1] Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court instructed the jury that "[t]hreat means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to wrongfully cause physical damage to…”
State v. Johnston, 156 Wash. 2d 355 (Wash. 2006). “¶4 Johnston was charged with threats to bomb or injure property in violation of RCW 9.61.160. 1 Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury that “[t]hreat means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to wrongfully cause physical damage to…”
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.