Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.68A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 5105-S.SL) ***
(1) A person is guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor if the person:
(a) Compels a minor by threat or force to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance;
(b) Aids, invites, employs, authorizes, or causes a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance; or
(c) Being a parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor, permits the minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that the conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance.
(2) Sexual exploitation of a minor is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
[ 1989 c 32 s 2; 1984 c 262 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: State v. Chester, 918 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Chester, 918 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 37× “The stepdaughter discovered the videocamera, the mother viewed the tape and called the police, and Chester was arrested. Chester told police that he videotaped his stepdaughter as a "dumb joke," and that he did not consider her as a sex object.”
State v. Chester, 940 P.2d 1374 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 15× “RCW 9.68A.040, as written, does not prohibit the conduct involved in this case.”
State v. Jackman, 156 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 8× “RCW 9.68A.040 is stated in the disjunctive, and we note that in this case the jury was instructed to apply only RCW 9.”
State v. Jackman, 132 P.3d 136 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 8× “Alternatively, the State must prove that the defendant "[a]id[ed], invite[d], employ[ed], authorize[d], or cause[d] a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance.”
State v. Root, 9 P.3d 214 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 12× “ISSUE Whether, in a case charging multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on posing children for many photographs, the proper “unit of prosecution” is each photograph, each pose, or each photo session. *705 DISCUSSION The Court of Appeals held that the State did…”
State v. Root, 9 P.3d 214 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 12× “ISSUE Whether, in a case charging multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on posing children for many photographs, the proper "unit of prosecution" is each photograph, each pose, or each photo session. DISCUSSION The Court of Appeals held that the State did not…”
State v. Grannis, 930 P.2d 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “In addition, it charged Grannis with one count (Count II) of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of RCW 9.68A.040. Count I was based on the videotape that Cobain had borrowed and then taken to the police.”
State v. Farmer, 805 P.2d 200 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 5× “The court found this to be deliberate, cruel and malicious conduct constituting a substantial and compelling reason warranting an exceptional sentence.”
C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wash. 2d 699 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “44 RCW or RCW 9.68A.040 or prior laws of similar effect at the time the act was committed.”
State v. Myers, 133 Wash. 2d 26 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 3× “” Myers was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under RCW 9.68A.040(l)(b). At trial, Myers claimed he made these tapes to anger his girl friend, and not for the purpose of sexual stimulation.”
State v. Myers, 941 P.2d 1102 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 3× “" Myers was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under RCW 9.68A.040(1)(b). At trial, Myers claimed he made these tapes to anger his girlfriend, and not for the purpose of sexual stimulation.”
State v. Knutson, 823 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “Knutson was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of violating RCW 9.68A.040 2 and two counts of violating RCW 9.”
Show all 100 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(1) — 9 cases
State v. Chester, 940 P.2d 1374 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 9.68A.040, as written, does not prohibit the conduct involved in this case.”
State v. Pietrzak, 997 P.2d 947 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Ritter, 149 Wash. App. 105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Pietrzak, 100 Wash. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Ritter, 201 P.3d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Jackman, 132 P.3d 136 (Wash. 2006). “Alternatively, the State must prove that the defendant "[a]id[ed], invite[d], employ[ed], authorize[d], or cause[d] a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance.”
State Of Washington, V. Jeremiah Jeffries-porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Michael Angel Amaro (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(1)(a)(b) — 1 case
State v. Jackman, 104 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(1)(b) — 22 cases
State v. Jackman, 132 P.3d 136 (Wash. 2006). “Alternatively, the State must prove that the defendant "[a]id[ed], invite[d], employ[ed], authorize[d], or cause[d] a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will be photographed or part of a live performance.”
State v. Myers, 941 P.2d 1102 (Wash. 1997). “" Myers was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under RCW 9.68A.040(1)(b). At trial, Myers claimed he made these tapes to anger his girlfriend, and not for the purpose of sexual stimulation.”
State v. Chester, 940 P.2d 1374 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 9.68A.040, as written, does not prohibit the conduct involved in this case.”
State v. D.H., 9 P.3d 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Bohannon, 814 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Chester, 940 P.2d 1374 (Wash. 1997).
State Of Washington v. Melford J. Warren Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(2) — 2 cases
In Re The Pers. Restraint Petition Of Jeremy Thomas Stevens (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of: Russell Lewis Meyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(a) — 1 case
State v. Chester, 918 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The stepdaughter discovered the videocamera, the mother viewed the tape and called the police, and Chester was arrested. Chester told police that he videotaped his stepdaughter as a "dumb joke," and that he did not consider her as a sex object.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(b) — 3 cases
State v. Chester, 918 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The stepdaughter discovered the videocamera, the mother viewed the tape and called the police, and Chester was arrested. Chester told police that he videotaped his stepdaughter as a "dumb joke," and that he did not consider her as a sex object.”
State v. Grannis, 930 P.2d 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “In addition, it charged Grannis with one count (Count II) of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of RCW 9.68A.040. Count I was based on the videotape that Cobain had borrowed and then taken to the police.”
State Of Washington v. Jeremy Stevens (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(c) — 1 case
State v. Chester, 918 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The stepdaughter discovered the videocamera, the mother viewed the tape and called the police, and Chester was arrested. Chester told police that he videotaped his stepdaughter as a "dumb joke," and that he did not consider her as a sex object.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Jackman, 156 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.68A.040 is stated in the disjunctive, and we note that in this case the jury was instructed to apply only RCW 9.”
State v. Jackman, 104 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(l)(b) — 12 cases
State v. Jackman, 156 Wash. 2d 736 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.68A.040 is stated in the disjunctive, and we note that in this case the jury was instructed to apply only RCW 9.”
State v. Myers, 133 Wash. 2d 26 (Wash. 1997). “” Myers was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under RCW 9.68A.040(l)(b). At trial, Myers claimed he made these tapes to anger his girl friend, and not for the purpose of sexual stimulation.”
State v. Chester, 940 P.2d 1374 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 9.68A.040, as written, does not prohibit the conduct involved in this case.”
State v. Chester, 918 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The stepdaughter discovered the videocamera, the mother viewed the tape and called the police, and Chester was arrested. Chester told police that he videotaped his stepdaughter as a "dumb joke," and that he did not consider her as a sex object.”
State v. Myers, 918 P.2d 183 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.040(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Chester, 940 P.2d 1374 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 9.68A.040, as written, does not prohibit the conduct involved in this case.”
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.