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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070 (2025)

Possession of depictions of minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, a person commits the crime of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the first degree when he or she knowingly possesses a visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011(8) (a) through (e).
(b) Possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the first degree is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(c) For the purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under this subsection, each depiction or image of visual or printed matter constitutes a separate offense.
(2)(a) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, a person commits the crime of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the second degree when he or she knowingly possesses any visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011(8) (f) or (g).
(b) Possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the second degree is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(c) For the purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under this subsection, each incident of possession of one or more depictions or images of visual or printed matter constitutes a separate offense.
(3) This section does not apply to a minor's possession of visual or printed matter depicting any minor 13 years of age or older engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
(4) This section does not apply to a person under 13 years of age in possession of visual or printed matter depicting himself or herself engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
[ 2026 c 223 s 6; 2019 c 128 s 6; 2017 c 126 s 2; 2010 c 227 s 6; 2006 c 139 s 3; 1990 c 155 s 1; 1989 c 32 s 5; 1984 c 262 s 6.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2026 c 223: See note following RCW 9.68A.011.
Short title—2019 c 128: See note following RCW 13.40.660.
Effective date—1990 c 155 ss 1 and 2: "Sections 1 and 2 of this act shall be effective July 1, 1990." [ 1990 c 155 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Sutherby, 204 P.3d 916 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sutherby, 204 P.3d 916 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 9× “ANALYSIS ¶ 11 Two issues are dispositive of this appeal: (1) what is the proper unit of prosecution for possession of child pornography under former RCW 9.68A.070 (1990), and (2) did Sutherby receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's failure to seek a…”
State v. Sutherby, 165 Wash. 2d 870 (2009). · cites it 8× “ANALYSIS ¶11 Two issues are dispositive of this appeal: (1) what is the proper unit of prosecution for possession of child pornography under former RCW 9.68A.070 (1990) and (2) did Sutherby receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney’s failure to seek a…”
State v. Luther, 134 P.3d 205 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 8× “Luther was charged with eight counts 1 of possessing depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct contrary to RCW 9.68A.070. He waived his right to a jury trial.”
State v. Luther, 134 P.3d 205 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 8× “Luther was charged with eight counts [1] of possessing depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct contrary to RCW 9.68A.070. He waived his right to a jury trial.”
State v. Polk, 348 P.3d 1255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Polk contends that the entry of four convictions for second degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy because the simultaneous possession of multiple photographs found in the same…”
State v. Garbaccio, 214 P.3d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “¶ 1 Christopher Garbaccio appeals from his conviction for possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of RCW 9.68A.070. [1] Garbaccio contends that law enforcement authorities lacked probable cause to authorize the issuance of the…”
State v. Sutherby, 158 P.3d 91 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “Sutherby argues on appeal that (1) the trial court used the wrong unit of prosecution under the child pornography statute, former RCW 9.68A.070 (1990); (2) the child's mother gave impermissible opinion testimony that E.”
State v. Gailus, 147 P.3d 1300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “Unit of prosecution ¶ 5 Gailus contends that nine of his ten convictions for possessing depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct must be vacated because the 12 depictions that form the bases for the ten charges were digitally recorded onto a single compact…”
State v. Garbaccio, 151 Wash. App. 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “¶23 With respect to the elements of the offense of possession of child pornography, the applicable version of *733 RCW 9.68A.070 provided that “[a] person who knowingly possesses visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a Class…”
State v. Rosul, 974 P.2d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 13× “Microsoft fired Rosul two days after this discovery, and Rosul was subsequently convicted in a jury trial for violation of RCW 9.68A.070, possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”
State v. Grannis, 930 P.2d 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “The State charged Grannis with two counts (Counts I and III) of possessing visual or printed matter depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of RCW 9.68A.070. In addition, it charged Grannis with one count (Count II) of sexual exploitation of a minor…”
State v. Gailus, 136 Wash. App. 191 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “Unit of prosecution ¶5 Gailus contends that 9 of his 10 convictions for possessing depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct must be vacated because the 12 depictions that form the bases for the 10 charges were digitally recorded onto a single compact disc and,…”
Show all 113 citing cases →
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(1): 5 cases
State Of Washington v. Marc Mckee, 413 P.3d 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. Shawn Morgan, No. 51558-0 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2019).
State Of Washington, V Jorden David Knight, No. 81837-6 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2020).
State Of Washington, V Jorden David Knight, No. 81837-6 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021).
State Of Washington, V. Kaz Airk Joshua Mckenzie, No. 85532-8 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2024).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(1)(a): 10 cases
State of Washington v. Yasir M. Majeed, 474 P.3d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington, V. Wayde Rice, No. 54843-7 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2022).
State Of Washington v. Dwayne Marcum, No. 46855-7 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2016).
State Of Washington v. Keith E. Kayser, No. 72407-0 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2016).
State of Washington v. Lonnie D. Gleim, Jr., No. 33209-8 (Wash. Ct. App. May 3, 2016).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(1)(b): 2 cases
State of Washington v. Lonnie D. Gleim, Jr., No. 33209-8 (Wash. Ct. App. May 3, 2016).
State Of Washington v. James Leroy Friedrich, No. 54421-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2020).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(1)(c): 3 cases
State of Washington v. Frank Murillo, IV, No. 33526-7 (Wash. Ct. App. May 4, 2017).
State Of Washington v. Lonnie D. Martin, No. 52996-3 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2020).
State Of Washington v. Russell Loven, No. 66005-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(2): 5 cases
State v. Davis, 768 P.2d 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
State Of Washington v. Marc Mckee, 413 P.3d 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. Allixzander Harris, No. 46758-5 (Wash. Ct. App. June 1, 2016).
John B. Velezmoro v. Karolina Martynova, No. 74343-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2017).
State Of Washington v. Richard S. Martell, 402 P.3d 387 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(2)(A): 1 case
State of Washington v. Ray G. Deonier, No. 38689-9 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2024).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(2)(a): 7 cases
State v. Polk, 348 P.3d 1255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Polk contends that the entry of four convictions for second degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy because the simultaneous possession of multiple photographs found in the same…”
State v. Powell, 326 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State Of Washington, V. Wayde Rice, No. 54843-7 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2022).
State of Washington v. David Norman Polk, No. 31935-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2015).
State Of Washington v. Dwayne Marcum, No. 46855-7 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2016).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(2)(b): 1 case
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of: Russell Lewis Meyer, No. 41319-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(2)(c): 5 cases
State v. Polk, 348 P.3d 1255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Polk contends that the entry of four convictions for second degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy because the simultaneous possession of multiple photographs found in the same…”
State of Washington v. David Norman Polk, No. 31935-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2015).
State of Washington v. Frank Murillo, IV, No. 33526-7 (Wash. Ct. App. May 4, 2017).
State Of Washington v. Lonnie D. Martin, No. 52996-3 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2020).
State Of Washington v. Russell Loven, No. 66005-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013).
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.070(b): 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Jordan T. Godsey, No. 57419-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2023).
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.