Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.95
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.015 (2026)

Finding of fact or special verdict establishing defendant armed with deadly weapon

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In every criminal case wherein conviction would require the board to determine the duration of confinement, or the court to make such determination for persons committed after July 1, 1986, for crimes committed before July 1, 1984, and wherein there has been an allegation and evidence establishing that the accused was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime, the court shall make a finding of fact of whether or not the accused was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined by RCW 9.95.040, at the time of the commission of the crime, or if a jury trial is had, the jury shall, if it find the defendant guilty, also find a special verdict as to whether or not the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in RCW 9.95.040, at the time of the commission of the crime.
[ 1986 c 224 s 8; 1961 c 138 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—Severability—1986 c 224: See notes following RCW 9.95.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases, 1965–2016 · leading case: State v. McKim, 653 P.2d 1040 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McKim, 653 P.2d 1040 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 17× “The parties also agree petitioner was not personally armed during the robbery.”
State v. Silva-Baltazar, 886 P.2d 138 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 6× “After rejecting accomplice liability as a basis for imposition of the sentence enhancement for deadly weapon, the McKim court looked to the language of the enhancement itself, RCW 9.95.015. Since RCW 9.95.015 required "a finding of fact of whether or not the accused was armed…”
State v. Pringle, 517 P.2d 192 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 8× “At the same time the sentencing judge refused to enter the special finding of fact pursuant to RCW 9.95.015 as to whether or not the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime, and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for the crime of…”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Bush, 616 P.2d 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “Because Bush had been convicted previously and there was a special finding pursuant to RCW 9.95.015 that during the commission of the robbery he was armed with a deadly weapon, the Parole Board set a mandatory minimum term of 7 1/2 years.”
State v. Coma, 417 P.2d 853 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 11× “040 and RCW 9.95.015, fixed the minimum “duration of confinement” of Dennis Coma at 5 years.”
State v. Canady, 421 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 9× “RCW 9.95.015. Finding of fact or special verdict establishing defendant armed with deadly weapon.”
State v. Tongate, 613 P.2d 121 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 3× “1881 (1975): Since RCW 9.95.015 and 9.95.040 likewise provide for an enhanced penalty for one armed with a deadly weapon at the time of commission of the crime for which defendant is found guilty, the above cases are applicable.”
State v. Bilal, 776 P.2d 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “125 was enacted, the Legislature amended RCW 9.95.015 to apply to persons convicted after July 1, 1986, for crimes committed before July 1, 1984.”
State v. Davis, 682 P.2d 883 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “In McKim , we held that RCW 9.95.015 and RCW 9.95.040 require the State to prove that the defendant was either actually or constructively armed with a deadly weapon.”
State v. Cosner, 530 P.2d 317 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 4× “” At the time petitioner entered his guilty pleas, the State pointed out to the trial judge that the language of the charges precluded the possibility of probation, and also that it was requesting a special finding pursuant to RCW 9.95.015, 3 which in turn would require, under…”
State v. Papadopoulos, 662 P.2d 59 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “040 through interpretation of RCW 9.95.015. The combined reasoning of Plakke, Van Pilón, and McKim compels the conclusion that an unarmed defendant cannot be punished for possession or use of a firearm or deadly weapon in the commission of a crime unless the trier of fact enters…”
State v. Thorne, 921 P.2d 514 (Wash. 1996). “Former RCW 9.95.015; RCW 9.94A.125. There is no constitutional requirement that a deadly weapon finding be made by the jury; if it is a sentencing factor, the sentencing court may make that finding.”
Show all 68 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.