Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.94B
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94B.080 (2026)

Mental status evaluations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court may order an offender whose sentence includes community placement or community supervision to undergo a mental status evaluation and to participate in available outpatient mental health treatment, if the court finds that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the offender is a mentally ill person as defined in RCW 71.24.025, and that this condition is likely to have influenced the offense. An order requiring mental status evaluation or treatment may be based on a presentence report and, if applicable, mental status evaluations that have been filed with the court to determine the offender's competency or eligibility for a defense of insanity. The court may order additional evaluations at a later date if deemed appropriate.
[ 2015 c 80 s 1; 2008 c 231 s 53.]

Notes:

Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: State Of Washington v. Michael Christopher Shelton, 378 P.3d 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington v. Michael Christopher Shelton, 378 P.3d 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “¶31 The plain and unambiguous language of former RCW 9.94B.080 (2008) 10 states the court may order a mental health evaluation only if the court finds Shelton “is a mentally ill person as defined in RCW 71.”
State v. Locke, 307 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Mental Health Evaluation ¶60 Finally, Locke argues that the trial court improperly ordered a mental health evaluation and recommended treatment as a condition of his sentence without making statutorily required findings. The State concedes that the trial court improperly imposed…”
State v. Stark, 334 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Stark to undergo a mental status evaluation because under RCW 9.94B.080, it is unsupported in the record.”
State Of Washington, V. Samuel Jameson Dewey (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “Dewey appeals, arguing that the superior court erred by ordering a mental health evaluation without first finding him mentally ill, as required by RCW 9.94B.080, and by imposing community supervision fees when it stated it would not mandate discretionary LFOs.”
State Of Washington, V. Samuel Jameson Dewey (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “Dewey appeals, arguing that the superior court erred by ordering a mental health evaluation without first finding him mentally ill, as required by RCW 9.94B.080, and by imposing community supervision fees when it stated it would not mandate discretionary LFOs.”
In Re The Pers. Restraint Petition Of Brian Strong (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “s of electronic devices, (6) remand for the trial court to amend special conditions 25 and 26 to include a reasonable cause requirement, (7) reverse the trial court's imposition of a mental health evaluation condition in special condition 27 in Appendix H and remand for the…”
State of Washington v. O'Neal Payne III (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “” RCW 9.94B.080. 20 No. 56637-1-II In State v.”
State Of Washington v. James Richard Montgomery (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “Because the court did not make the statutorily required findings, we remand for the court to consider this condition under RCW 9.94B.080. Therefore, we affirm but remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
State of Washington v. Viktor Morgunenko (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “Mental Health Evaluation Viktor Morgunenko argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering he undergo a mental health evaluation as part of his community custody conditions without making findings demanded by RCW 9.94B.080 and RCW 71.24.025. RCW 9.94B.”
State Of Washington v. Trey Kinard Aka Matthew Aaron (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “We reverse the community custody condition requiring Aaron to seek a mental health evaluation and remand for a sentencing court to make the requisite factual findings required by RCW 9.94B.080. We also remand to correct the scrivener’s error on the judgment and sentence.”
State of Washington v. Isaac Shane Sprauer (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “1 Mental health evaluation RCW 9.94B.080 authorizes sentencing courts to order an offender under community supervision to undergo a mental status evaluation and treatment, but only if it finds that “reasonable grounds exist to believe that the offender is a mentally ill person…”
State of Washington v. Labarron Teshaun Conners (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Conners appeals, arguing that the superior court erred by ordering a mental health evaluation without first finding him mentally ill and that this condition contributed to his offense as required by RCW 9.94B.080. The State contends that the court properly ordered Conners to…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.