Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040 (2026)

Criminal conspiracy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them takes a substantial step in pursuance of such agreement.
(2) It shall not be a defense to criminal conspiracy that the person or persons with whom the accused is alleged to have conspired:
(a) Has not been prosecuted or convicted; or
(b) Has been convicted of a different offense; or
(c) Is not amenable to justice; or
(d) Has been acquitted; or
(e) Lacked the capacity to commit an offense; or
(f) Is a law enforcement officer or other government agent who did not intend that a crime be committed.
(3) Criminal conspiracy is a:
(a) Class A felony when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is murder in the first degree;
(b) Class B felony when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a class A felony other than murder in the first degree;
(c) Class C felony when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a class B felony;
(d) Gross misdemeanor when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a class C felony;
(e) Misdemeanor when an object of the conspiratorial agreement is a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor.
[ 1997 c 17 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.28.040.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Pacheco, 882 P.2d 183 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pacheco, 882 P.2d 183 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 42× “He contends he did not commit conspiracy within the meaning of RCW 9A.28.040 because no genuine agreement existed between him and his sole coconspirator, an undercover police agent.”
State v. Gocken, 896 P.2d 1267 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 10× “Crisler was charged by the City of East Wenatchee *99 with criminal conspiracy in violation of RCW 9A.28.040(1). [3] On December 10, 1991, Ms.”
State v. Valladares, 664 P.2d 508 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 8× “At the same time, however, RCW 9A.28.040(1) makes an agreement with one or more persons a necessary element of the crime of conspiracy.”
State v. Bobic, 140 Wash. 2d 250 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 7× “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
State v. Bobic, 996 P.2d 610 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 7× “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex.Sess.”
State v. Houston-Sconiers, 391 P.3d 409 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS ON THE CONSPIRACY CONVICTIONS Petitioners were also convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of RCW 9A.28.040(1 ), along with a firearm sentence enhancement on that conviction.”
State v. Pineda-Pineda, 226 P.3d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “The State replies that, although the "substantial step" is required under the conspiracy statute, RCW 9A.28.040, the State must charge drug conspiracies under RCW 69.”
State v. Pineda-Pineda, 154 Wash. App. 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “The State replies that, although the “substantial step” is required under the conspiracy statute, RCW 9A.28.040, the State must charge drug conspiracies under RCW 69.”
State v. Stein, 27 P.3d 184 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.28.040(1). Accomplice liability requires knowledge and a completed crime; conspiracy requires intent and a substantial step towards completion.”
United States v. Webb, 166 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (W.D. Wash. 2016). · cites it 20× “Under RCW 9A.28.040, the general criminal conspiracy statute, “[a] person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.”
State v. Morgan, 261 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “110(1)(a) and RCW 9A.28.040. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 8. The information provides: In that the defendant, THOMAS EUGENE MORGAN, in the State of Washington, on or between May 18, 2009 and June 16, 2009, did conspire by use of a threat directed against a current or prospective…”
State v. Johnson, 873 P.2d 514 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 4× “060(1)(a) and (b), leading organized crime, or RCW 9A.28.040, criminal conspiracy. This is a specious assertion which is without merit.”
Show all 117 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(1) — 65 cases
State v. Gocken, 896 P.2d 1267 (Wash. 1995). “Crisler was charged by the City of East Wenatchee *99 with criminal conspiracy in violation of RCW 9A.28.040(1). [3] On December 10, 1991, Ms.”
State v. Stein, 27 P.3d 184 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 9A.28.040(1). Accomplice liability requires knowledge and a completed crime; conspiracy requires intent and a substantial step towards completion.”
State v. Pacheco, 882 P.2d 183 (Wash. 1994). “He contends he did not commit conspiracy within the meaning of RCW 9A.28.040 because no genuine agreement existed between him and his sole coconspirator, an undercover police agent.”
State v. Houston-Sconiers, 391 P.3d 409 (Wash. 2017). “THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS ON THE CONSPIRACY CONVICTIONS Petitioners were also convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of RCW 9A.28.040(1 ), along with a firearm sentence enhancement on that conviction.”
State v. Stein, 144 Wash. 2d 236 (Wash. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(2) — 4 cases
State v. Pacheco, 882 P.2d 183 (Wash. 1994). “He contends he did not commit conspiracy within the meaning of RCW 9A.28.040 because no genuine agreement existed between him and his sole coconspirator, an undercover police agent.”
United States v. Webb, 166 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (W.D. Wash. 2016). “Under RCW 9A.28.040, the general criminal conspiracy statute, “[a] person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.”
State Of Washington, Respondent/cross-app V.terence Franklin Hopwood, Appellant/cross Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Washington v. Christopher Floe (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(2)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington, Respondent/cross-app V.terence Franklin Hopwood, Appellant/cross Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(2)(d) — 5 cases
State v. Valladares, 664 P.2d 508 (Wash. 1983). “At the same time, however, RCW 9A.28.040(1) makes an agreement with one or more persons a necessary element of the crime of conspiracy.”
State v. Harris, 725 P.2d 975 (Wash. 1986).
State v. Pacheco, 882 P.2d 183 (Wash. 1994). “He contends he did not commit conspiracy within the meaning of RCW 9A.28.040 because no genuine agreement existed between him and his sole coconspirator, an undercover police agent.”
State v. Valladares, 639 P.2d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Pacheco, 851 P.2d 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(2)(f) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. Joshua C. Frahm, 418 P.3d 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, Resp./cross App v. Michael Emeric Mockovak, App./cross Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State Of Washington v. Sidney A. Potts (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(3) — 4 cases
State v. Bobic, 140 Wash. 2d 250 (Wash. 2000). “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
State v. Bobic, 996 P.2d 610 (Wash. 2000). “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex.Sess.”
State of Washington v. Debra Renee Monroe (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State Of Washington, V. Freddy Escobar (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(3)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Bobic, 140 Wash. 2d 250 (Wash. 2000). “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
State v. Bobic, 996 P.2d 610 (Wash. 2000). “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex.Sess.”
State v. Kron, 821 P.2d 1248 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Bobic, 972 P.2d 955 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(3)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Bobic, 140 Wash. 2d 250 (Wash. 2000). “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
State v. Bobic, 996 P.2d 610 (Wash. 2000). “010, added Title 9A RCW, and created a new section of the criminal code, RCW 9A.28.040. Laws of 1975, 1st Ex.Sess.”
State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040(3)(c) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V Edward Junior Pinkney, Iii (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
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.