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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.100 (2026)

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every person charged with the commission of a crime is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. No person may be convicted of a crime unless each element of such crime is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) When a crime has been proven against a person, and there exists a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees he or she is guilty, he or she shall be convicted only of the lowest degree.
[ 2011 c 336 s 349; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.04.100.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Soundgarden v. Eikenberry, 871 P.2d 1050 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Soundgarden v. Eikenberry, 871 P.2d 1050 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 12× “They also claim the statute denies the right to a jury trial and violates RCW 9A.04.100, which requires that each element of a crime be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Coryell, 483 P.3d 98 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.04.100(2) addresses convicting a person of the lesser degree crime.”
State v. McCullum, 656 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.04.100 states every defendant is "presumed innocent unless proved guilty", and RCW 9A.”
State v. Reece, 757 P.2d 947 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “Defendants in Reece further argue that the prurient appeal of materials such as Chains and Whips which are aimed at a deviant subgroup must be established by some evidence in addition to the materials themselves.”
State v. Knighten, 748 P.2d 1118 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “He did not, at the time of arrest, need to have at his command the evidence to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the detention of Knighten was proper as a lawful arrest, there is no taint of illegality upon any evidence obtained through voluntary…”
State Of Washington v. Robert Lee Tyler, 195 Wash. App. 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “2d 152 (1974); see former RCW 9A.04.100(1) (1975) (“No person may be convicted of a crime unless each element of such crime is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Taylor, 745 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 4× “II Petitioner contends that Washington law permits a jury to render a verdict on a lesser included offense when it cannot reach unanimity on the greater offense.”
State v. Henderson, 344 P.3d 1207 (Wash. 2015). “” RCW 9A.04.100(2) (emphasis added). But the parties in this case have not argued that issue.”
State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. V. Mical Darion Roberts, App/cross-res., 553 P.3d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “ve Wheeler discovered that the residence where the shooting occurred had been the subject of an investigation by the Tacoma Police Department, who had posted a video 5 The plain language of this standard alone, as articulated in Homan, highlights the inherent conflict with the…”
State v. Meas, 118 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.04.100(2). But, here, the State did not charge Meas with different degrees of the same crime and the court did not instruct the jury as to different degrees of a crime.”
State v. Krup, 676 P.2d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “2d at 178 , instruction 9, which embodies RCW 9A.04.100(2), clarifies any ambiguity.”
State v. Davis, 618 P.2d 1034 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “020(l)(b); RCW 9A.04.100; RCW 9A.56.190; State v. Hanton, 94 Wn.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.100(1) — 6 cases
State Of Washington v. Robert Lee Tyler, 195 Wash. App. 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “2d 152 (1974); see former RCW 9A.04.100(1) (1975) (“No person may be convicted of a crime unless each element of such crime is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Brown, 58 P.3d 889 (Wash. 2002).
State v. Shouse, 83 P.3d 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Shouse, 83 P.3d 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State Of Washington v. Michael Raymond White (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.100(2) — 11 cases
State v. Coryell, 483 P.3d 98 (Wash. 2021). “RCW 9A.04.100(2) addresses convicting a person of the lesser degree crime.”
State v. Taylor, 745 P.2d 510 (Wash. 1987). “II Petitioner contends that Washington law permits a jury to render a verdict on a lesser included offense when it cannot reach unanimity on the greater offense.”
State v. Henderson, 344 P.3d 1207 (Wash. 2015). “” RCW 9A.04.100(2) (emphasis added). But the parties in this case have not argued that issue.”
State v. Meas, 118 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 9A.04.100(2). But, here, the State did not charge Meas with different degrees of the same crime and the court did not instruct the jury as to different degrees of a crime.”
State v. Krup, 676 P.2d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “2d at 178 , instruction 9, which embodies RCW 9A.04.100(2), clarifies any ambiguity.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.100(5) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. James Edsel Hager (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.