Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230 (2026)
Telephone harassment
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every person who, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass any other person, shall make a telephone call to such other person:
(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, profane, indecent, or obscene words or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act; or
(b) Anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, whether or not conversation ensues; or
(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household;
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) The person is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW if either of the following applies:
(a) That person has previously been convicted of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, with the same victim or member of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order in this or any other state; or
(b) That person harasses another person under subsection (1)(c) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
Notes:
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Severability—1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110.
Effective date—1985 c 288: See RCW 9A.46.905.
Severability—1967 c 16: "If any portion of this act is held to be unconstitutional or void, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this act." [ 1967 c 16 s 4.]
Communicating with child for immoral purposes: RCW 9.68A.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008).
State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230, 1 requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the call.”
State v. Lilyblad, 177 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230 [1] , requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the…”
State v. Dyson, 872 P.2d 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Richard Dyson (Dyson) appeals his conviction for one count of telephone harassment pursuant to RCW 9.61.230, arguing that: (1) RCW 9.61.”
State v. Alexander, 888 P.2d 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “He was charged in Shoreline District Court with telephone harassment in violation of RCW 9.61.230. Under that statute, a person commits a crime when he makes a telephone call to another person with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass .”
State v. Alphonse, 197 P.3d 1211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that RCW 9.61.230 must be construed to require proof that he had the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass when he initiated the call.”
State v. Alphonse, 147 Wash. App. 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that RCW 9.61.230 must be construed to require proof that he had the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass when he initiated the call.”
United States v. Robert Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019). “WAGGY 15 TASHIMA, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority opinion holds that the telephone harassment statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230 (1), does not implicate the First Amendment because it criminalizes conduct rather than speech—that is, making a telephone call to another…”
City of Bellevue v. Lorang, 140 Wash. 2d 19 (Wash. 2000). “The Ordinance requires the call be made “with intent to disturb, embarrass, harass, intimidate, threaten or torment any other person .”
City of Bellevue v. Lorang, 992 P.2d 496 (Wash. 2000). “The Ordinance requires the call be made "with intent to disturb, embarrass, harass, intimidate, threaten or torment any other person.”
State v. Meneses, 205 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 9.61.230 proscribes telephone harassment and provides in pertinent part: (1) Every person who, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass any other person, shall make a telephone call to such other person: (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, profane, indecent, or…”
State v. Meneses, 149 Wash. App. 707 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 9.61.230 proscribes telephone harassment and provides in pertinent part: (1) Every person who, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass any other person, shall make a telephone call to such other person: *712 (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, profane, indecent,…”
State v. Meneses, 169 Wash. 2d 586 (Wash. 2010). “Instruction on Mens Rea ¶5 Meneses argues that the jury instructions omitted an essential element of the crime of telephone harassment *591 under RCW 9.61.230, namely, that the intent to harass be formed at the outset of the call.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(1) — 16 cases
State v. Dyson, 872 P.2d 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Richard Dyson (Dyson) appeals his conviction for one count of telephone harassment pursuant to RCW 9.61.230, arguing that: (1) RCW 9.61.”
State v. Lilyblad, 177 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230 [1] , requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the…”
State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230, 1 requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the call.”
City of Bellevue v. Lorang, 140 Wash. 2d 19 (Wash. 2000). “The Ordinance requires the call be made “with intent to disturb, embarrass, harass, intimidate, threaten or torment any other person .”
City of Bellevue v. Lorang, 992 P.2d 496 (Wash. 2000). “The Ordinance requires the call be made "with intent to disturb, embarrass, harass, intimidate, threaten or torment any other person.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Lilyblad, 177 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230 [1] , requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the…”
State v. Alphonse, 197 P.3d 1211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that RCW 9.61.230 must be construed to require proof that he had the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass when he initiated the call.”
State v. Alphonse, 147 Wash. App. 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that RCW 9.61.230 must be construed to require proof that he had the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass when he initiated the call.”
State v. Alphonse, 174 P.3d 684 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Lilyblad, 177 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230 [1] , requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(1)(c) — 2 cases
State Of Washington, V Clifford James Collier (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V. Merlin Todd Mcneal Hemric (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(2) — 2 cases
State v. Dyson, 872 P.2d 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Richard Dyson (Dyson) appeals his conviction for one count of telephone harassment pursuant to RCW 9.61.230, arguing that: (1) RCW 9.61.”
State v. Alexander, 888 P.2d 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “He was charged in Shoreline District Court with telephone harassment in violation of RCW 9.61.230. Under that statute, a person commits a crime when he makes a telephone call to another person with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or embarrass .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(2)(b) — 13 cases
State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230, 1 requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the call.”
State v. Lilyblad, 177 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230 [1] , requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the…”
State v. Tellez, 141 Wash. App. 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Tellez, 170 P.3d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Allen, 255 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(3) — 4 cases
State v. Dyson, 872 P.2d 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Richard Dyson (Dyson) appeals his conviction for one count of telephone harassment pursuant to RCW 9.61.230, arguing that: (1) RCW 9.61.”
State v. Lansdowne, 46 P.3d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Lansdowne, 111 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Ashker, 523 P.2d 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(3)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230, 1 requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the call.”
State v. Lilyblad, 177 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230 [1] , requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the…”
State v. Sloan, 205 P.3d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Lilyblad, 134 Wash. App. 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Lilyblad, 140 P.3d 614 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(a) — 2 cases
State v. Alphonse, 197 P.3d 1211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that RCW 9.61.230 must be construed to require proof that he had the intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass when he initiated the call.”
State v. Alphonse, 174 P.3d 684 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230, 1 requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the call.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.61.230(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case presents a conflict in the Court of Appeals regarding whether the crime of telephone harassment, RCW 9.61.230, 1 requires the State to prove that a defendant formed the specific intent to harass the victim at the initiation of a call, or at any time during the call.”
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.