Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are:
(a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests;
(b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from condemnation as criminal;
(c) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense;
(d) To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses, and to prescribe proportionate penalties for each.
(2) The provisions of this title shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms but when the language is susceptible of differing constructions it shall be interpreted to further the general purposes stated in this title.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.04.020.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: State v. McGee
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McGee (1993) wash · cites it 5× “I find no Washington case which analyzes the meaning of RCW 9A.04.020(2) in relation to the rule of lenity.”
State v. Abrams (2008) wash · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.04.020(1) declares: The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from…”
State v. Abrams (2008) wash · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.04.020(1) declares: The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from…”
State v. Fain (1980) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d). As the State points out, the application of proportionality standards to a specific set of facts is not an easy undertaking.”
State v. Shipp (1980) wash · cites it 2× “See RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d), 9A.08.010(2). Knowledge is intended to be a more culpable mental state than recklessness, which is a subjective standard, rather than the equivalent of negligence, which is an objective standard.”
State v. Veliz (2013) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.04.020(1). Analysis ¶36 The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 9A-.”
State v. Scott (1993) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d). *229 As the State points out, the application of proportionality standards to a specific set of facts is not an easy undertaking.”
State v. O'NEILL (1985) wash · cites it 2× “[3] RCW 9A.04.020(1)(b); 12 Am.Jur.2d Bribery § 6 (1964); State v.”
State v. McCullum (1983) wash “100 states every defendant is "presumed innocent unless proved guilty", and RCW 9A.04.020(1)(b) states the provisions of the code should be interpreted "[t]o safeguard conduct that is without culpability from condemnation as criminal".”
State v. Stubsjoen (1987) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.04.020(1) requires, moreover, that the provisions of the Washington Criminal Code be construed: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; Stubsjoen contends the evidence here was insufficient for…”
State v. Stockton (1982) wash · cites it 2× “Finally, RCW 9A.04.020 provides: (1) The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (c) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense; *534 (2) The provisions of this title shall be construed according to…”
State v. Brown (1999) washctapp · cites it 3× “t that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from condemnation as criminal; (c) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense; (d) To differentiate on…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(1) — 10 cases
State v. Abrams (2008) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1) declares: The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from…”
State v. Abrams (2008) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1) declares: The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from…”
State v. Veliz (2013) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1). Analysis ¶36 The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 9A-.”
State v. Stubsjoen (1987) washctapp “RCW 9A.04.020(1) requires, moreover, that the provisions of the Washington Criminal Code be construed: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; Stubsjoen contends the evidence here was insufficient for…”
State v. Dunbar (1990) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(1)(C) — 1 case
State v. Lira (1986) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(1)(a) — 10 cases
State v. Abrams (2008) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1) declares: The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from…”
Lee v. Jasman (2014) washctapp
Thomas v. State (1991) fladistctapp
State v. LaCaze (1981) wash
State v. Pesta (1997) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(1)(b) — 5 cases
State v. O'NEILL (1985) wash “[3] RCW 9A.04.020(1)(b); 12 Am.Jur.2d Bribery § 6 (1964); State v.”
State v. McCullum (1983) wash “100 states every defendant is "presumed innocent unless proved guilty", and RCW 9A.04.020(1)(b) states the provisions of the code should be interpreted "[t]o safeguard conduct that is without culpability from condemnation as criminal".”
State v. Bergstrom (2022) wash
State v. Seek (2002) washctapp
State v. Deer (2010) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Jackson (1997) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(1)(d) — 5 cases
State v. Shipp (1980) wash “See RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d), 9A.08.010(2). Knowledge is intended to be a more culpable mental state than recklessness, which is a subjective standard, rather than the equivalent of negligence, which is an objective standard.”
State v. Fain (1980) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d). As the State points out, the application of proportionality standards to a specific set of facts is not an easy undertaking.”
State v. Scott (1993) washctapp “RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d). *229 As the State points out, the application of proportionality standards to a specific set of facts is not an easy undertaking.”
State v. Moreno (2021) wash
State v. Brown (2000) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(2) — 14 cases
State v. McGee (1993) wash “I find no Washington case which analyzes the meaning of RCW 9A.04.020(2) in relation to the rule of lenity.”
State v. Lewis (1998) wash
In the Matter of Charles (1998) wash
State v. Veliz (2013) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1). Analysis ¶36 The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 9A-.”
State v. Stubsjoen (1987) washctapp “RCW 9A.04.020(1) requires, moreover, that the provisions of the Washington Criminal Code be construed: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; Stubsjoen contends the evidence here was insufficient for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(l)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Abrams (2008) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1) declares: The general purposes of the provisions governing the definition of offenses are: (a) To forbid and prevent conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from…”
State v. Barnes (1997) washctapp
State v. Larsen (1979) washctapp
State v. Veliz (2011) washctapp
State v. Longo (2015) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(l)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Davis (1980) washctapp
State v. Brown (1999) washctapp “t that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from condemnation as criminal; (c) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense; (d) To differentiate on…”
State v. Deer (2010) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Bauer (2013) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.020(l)(d) — 9 cases
State v. Fain (1980) wash “RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d). As the State points out, the application of proportionality standards to a specific set of facts is not an easy undertaking.”
State v. Scott (1993) washctapp “RCW 9A.04.020(1)(d). *229 As the State points out, the application of proportionality standards to a specific set of facts is not an easy undertaking.”
State v. Brown (2000) wash
State v. Sass (1980) wash
State v. Brown (1999) washctapp “t that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; (b) To safeguard conduct that is without culpability from condemnation as criminal; (c) To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense; (d) To differentiate on…”
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.