Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060 (2026)

Duress

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that:

(a) The actor participated in the crime under compulsion by another who by threat or use of force created an apprehension in the mind of the actor that in case of refusal he or she or another would be liable to immediate death or immediate grievous bodily injury; and

(b) That such apprehension was reasonable upon the part of the actor; and

(2) The defense of duress is not available if the crime charged is murder, manslaughter, or homicide by abuse.

(3) The defense of duress is not available if the actor intentionally or recklessly places himself or herself in a situation in which it is probable that he or she will be subject to duress.

(4) The defense of duress is not established solely by a showing that a married person acted on the command of his or her spouse.

[ 1999 c 60 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.16.060.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Riker, 869 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Riker, 869 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 10× “050 (self-defense) with RCW 9A.16.060 (duress). See also Janes, at 241 (pointing out the difference between "imminent" and "immediate").”

State v. Ng, 750 P.2d 632 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 5× “01, which in turn is based on the statutory language of RCW 9A.16.060 defining *42 duress. The language of the duress statute on its face describes the subjective nature of the defense.”

State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 5× “RCW 9A.16.060 provides for the defense of duress, and at the time of the incident stated: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The actor participated in the crime under compulsion by another who by threat or use of force created an apprehension in the…”

State v. Harvill, 234 P.3d 1166 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “See RCW 9A.16.060(1). A defendant "is entitled to have the jury instructed on [his] theory of the case if there is evidence to support that theory.”

State v. Frost, 161 P.3d 361 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “Washington law specifically provides for the defense of duress at RCW 9A.16.060. [3] ¶ 17 In the present case, the trial court ruled as follows regarding the interplay between the defense of duress and the State's burden of proof: THE COURT: You cannot argue to the jury that the…”

In Re Dornay, 161 P.3d 333 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “ISSUES PRESENTED ¶ 16 (A) Whether the Board erred in finding Dornay failed to establish the affirmative defense of duress, pursuant to RCW 9A.16.060, as to counts one, two, and three.”

State v. Dow, 162 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “¶14 Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the law of duress in accord with RCW 9A.16.060 and stated that “[t]he burden is on the defendant to prove the defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.”

State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “Former RCW 9A.16.060 (1975). 1 A statutory interpretation is an issue of law, and is determined de novo by this court.”

State v. Harvill, 169 Wash. 2d 254 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “In this context, “threat” means “to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent.”

State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. John Alan Whitaker, App-cross, 429 P.3d 512 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “Whitaker acknowledges that duress is not a defense to murder, but he argues that because RCW 9A.16.060 does not explicitly prohibit the use of a duress defense for aggravating factors, duress can be applied against the aggravating factors in RCW 10.”

Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 913 P.2d 377 (Wash. 1996). “) RCW 9A.16.060(1)(a); see State v. Turner, 42 Wn.”

State v. Mannering, 48 P.3d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Former RCW 9A.16.060 (1975). [4] Although the statute explicitly excludes duress as a defense to murder and manslaughter, it is silent on attempted murder.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(1) — 8 cases

State v. Riker, 869 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1994). “050 (self-defense) with RCW 9A.16.060 (duress). See also Janes, at 241 (pointing out the difference between "imminent" and "immediate").”

State v. Ng, 750 P.2d 632 (Wash. 1988). “01, which in turn is based on the statutory language of RCW 9A.16.060 defining *42 duress. The language of the duress statute on its face describes the subjective nature of the defense.”

State v. Williams, 937 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1997).

State v. Williams, 132 Wash. 2d 248 (Wash. 1997).

State v. Harvill, 234 P.3d 1166 (Wash. 2010). “See RCW 9A.16.060(1). A defendant "is entitled to have the jury instructed on [his] theory of the case if there is evidence to support that theory.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(1)(a) — 9 cases

State v. Harvill, 234 P.3d 1166 (Wash. 2010). “See RCW 9A.16.060(1). A defendant "is entitled to have the jury instructed on [his] theory of the case if there is evidence to support that theory.”

Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 913 P.2d 377 (Wash. 1996). “) RCW 9A.16.060(1)(a); see State v. Turner, 42 Wn.”

In Re Dornay, 161 P.3d 333 (Wash. 2007). “ISSUES PRESENTED ¶ 16 (A) Whether the Board erred in finding Dornay failed to establish the affirmative defense of duress, pursuant to RCW 9A.16.060, as to counts one, two, and three.”

State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 9A.16.060 provides for the defense of duress, and at the time of the incident stated: (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The actor participated in the crime under compulsion by another who by threat or use of force created an apprehension in the…”

Joshua Frost v. Ron Van Boening, 757 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(1)(b) — 1 case

State Of Washington V. Daniel Joseph Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(1)(c) — 1 case

State v. Dow, 253 P.3d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(2) — 8 cases

State v. Riker, 869 P.2d 43 (Wash. 1994). “050 (self-defense) with RCW 9A.16.060 (duress). See also Janes, at 241 (pointing out the difference between "imminent" and "immediate").”

State v. Mannering, 48 P.3d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Former RCW 9A.16.060 (1975). [4] Although the statute explicitly excludes duress as a defense to murder and manslaughter, it is silent on attempted murder.”

State v. Peters, 737 P.2d 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(3) — 4 cases

State v. Healy, 157 Wash. App. 502 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

State v. Harvill, 234 P.3d 1166 (Wash. 2010). “See RCW 9A.16.060(1). A defendant "is entitled to have the jury instructed on [his] theory of the case if there is evidence to support that theory.”

State v. McKinney, 573 P.2d 820 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978).

State v. Healy, 237 P.3d 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(l)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Harvill, 169 Wash. 2d 254 (Wash. 2010). “In this context, “threat” means “to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent.”

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash. 2d 671 (Wash. 2007).

State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). “Former RCW 9A.16.060 (1975). 1 A statutory interpretation is an issue of law, and is determined de novo by this court.”

State v. Russell, 737 P.2d 698 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.060(l)(c) — 1 case

State v. Dow, 162 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶14 Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the law of duress in accord with RCW 9A.16.060 and stated that “[t]he burden is on the defendant to prove the defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.”

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.