Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.
(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.
Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.
(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.
(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:
 
answer yes or no
 
1.
Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense?
 . . . . .
 
2.
If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
 
 
3.
If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
 
 
a.
Protecting himself or herself?
 . . . . .
 
b.
Protecting his or her family?
 . . . . .
 
c.
Protecting his or her property?
 . . . . .
 
d.
Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime?
 . . . . .
 
e.
Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime?
 . . . . .
 
f.
Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged?
 . . . . .
[ 1995 c 44 s 1; 1989 c 94 s 1; 1977 ex.s. c 206 s 8. Formerly RCW 9.01.200.]

Notes:

Use of deadly force—Legislative recognition: See note following RCW 9A.16.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 909 P.2d 1294 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 909 P.2d 1294 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 72× “110, a statute that provides, in part, that "the state of Washington shall indemnify or reimburse [a] defendant for all loss of time, legal fees, or other expenses involved in his or her defense" when the defendant is acquitted of criminal charges on grounds that he or she acted…”
State v. Lee, 979 P.2d 458 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 24× “We hold that the district and superior courts correctly awarded attorney fees and costs under RCW 9A.16.110, the “self-defense reimbursement statute,” 1 but incorrectly awarded interest.”
State v. Anderson, 863 P.2d 1370 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 18× “Sampson requested reimbursement for "loss of time" and legal fees pursuant to RCW 9A.16.110. The trial court denied each request.”
State v. Villanueva, 311 P.3d 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “We construe RCW 9A.16.110 to provide reimbursement for costs stemming from arrest charges referred by law enforcement to the State for formal charging and prosecution that results in a self-defense acquittal.”
State v. Jones, 964 P.2d 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “Jones was tried for second degree assault and acquitted on grounds of self-defense, he requested about $51,000 in costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to RCW 9A.16.110. The trial court denied most of the request, and Jones filed this appeal.”
Rismon v. State, 877 P.2d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “The State moved for summary judgment, and it was granted.”
Allstate Ins. v. Bauer, 977 P.2d 617 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “He also argues that the policy’s intentional acts exclusion is void or, alternatively, that the court should amend it to conform with RCW 9A.16.110, which provides that persons shall not “be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind” when they reasonably protect themselves or others…”
State v. Joswick, 858 P.2d 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “200, recodified and amended as RCW 9A.16.110 (Laws of 1989, ch. 94). 1 After dismissal of the criminal charge, the District Court convened a hearing on December 5, 1989, concluded that *314 Joswick's actions in defense of his wife were reasonable and justified, and awarded him…”
State v. Turner, 59 P.3d 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Finally, Turner’s attempt to distinguish the cases relating to the self defense reimbursement statute, RCW 9A.16.110, is unpersuasive. The sovereign immunity rule applies regardless of the context and this decision does not rest on the language of RCW 9A.”
State v. Park, 946 P.2d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “RCW 9A.16.110. Following a finding of not guilty by reason of lawful use of force in self-defense, RCW 9A.”
State v. Thiessen, 946 P.2d 1207 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “We agree that neither RCW 9A.16.110, RCW 4.56.110, nor RCW 4.56.”
In re Citizen Complaint by Stout v. Felix, 493 P.3d 1170 (Wash. 2021). “, concurring in result) it is the judge, not the complainant, who decides whether criminal charges should be filed based on seven discretionary, nonexclusive factors: (1) Whether an unsuccessful prosecution will subject the State to costs or damage claims under RCW 9A.16.110, or…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110(1) — 6 cases
City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 909 P.2d 1294 (Wash. 1996). “110, a statute that provides, in part, that "the state of Washington shall indemnify or reimburse [a] defendant for all loss of time, legal fees, or other expenses involved in his or her defense" when the defendant is acquitted of criminal charges on grounds that he or she acted…”
State v. Villanueva, 311 P.3d 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “We construe RCW 9A.16.110 to provide reimbursement for costs stemming from arrest charges referred by law enforcement to the State for formal charging and prosecution that results in a self-defense acquittal.”
State v. Jones, 964 P.2d 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Jones was tried for second degree assault and acquitted on grounds of self-defense, he requested about $51,000 in costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to RCW 9A.16.110. The trial court denied most of the request, and Jones filed this appeal.”
State Of Washington v. Troy E. Bottemiller (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of John Paul Beckmeyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110(2) — 11 cases
City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 909 P.2d 1294 (Wash. 1996). “110, a statute that provides, in part, that "the state of Washington shall indemnify or reimburse [a] defendant for all loss of time, legal fees, or other expenses involved in his or her defense" when the defendant is acquitted of criminal charges on grounds that he or she acted…”
State v. Jones, 964 P.2d 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Jones was tried for second degree assault and acquitted on grounds of self-defense, he requested about $51,000 in costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to RCW 9A.16.110. The trial court denied most of the request, and Jones filed this appeal.”
State v. Villanueva, 311 P.3d 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “We construe RCW 9A.16.110 to provide reimbursement for costs stemming from arrest charges referred by law enforcement to the State for formal charging and prosecution that results in a self-defense acquittal.”
State v. Thiessen, 946 P.2d 1207 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “We agree that neither RCW 9A.16.110, RCW 4.56.110, nor RCW 4.56.”
State v. Lee, 979 P.2d 458 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We hold that the district and superior courts correctly awarded attorney fees and costs under RCW 9A.16.110, the “self-defense reimbursement statute,” 1 but incorrectly awarded interest.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110(3) — 3 cases
State v. Park, 946 P.2d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 9A.16.110. Following a finding of not guilty by reason of lawful use of force in self-defense, RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington v. Troy E. Bottemiller (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Sims, 960 P.2d 483 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110(4) — 1 case
Rismon v. State, 877 P.2d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “The State moved for summary judgment, and it was granted.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110(5) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 964 P.2d 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Jones was tried for second degree assault and acquitted on grounds of self-defense, he requested about $51,000 in costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to RCW 9A.16.110. The trial court denied most of the request, and Jones filed this appeal.”
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.