Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.42
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.020 (2026)

Criminal mistreatment in the first degree

✓ 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 parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or a person employed to provide to the child or dependent person the basic necessities of life is guilty of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if he or she with criminal negligence, as defined in RCW 9A.08.010, causes great bodily harm to a child or dependent person by withholding any of the basic necessities of life.
(2) Criminal mistreatment in the first degree is a class B felony.
[ 2017 c 266 s 2; 2006 c 228 s 2; 1997 c 392 s 510; 1986 c 250 s 2.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2017 c 266: "The legislature finds that seniors and people with disabilities face a growing threat of financial exploitation and physical neglect. The legislature intends with this act to hold accountable those perpetrators who commit theft and physical neglect of seniors and people with disabilities by increasing penalties, reducing barriers to prosecution, and expanding the scope of protection for vulnerable persons." [ 2017 c 266 s 1.]
Short title—Findings—Construction—Conflict with federal requirements—Part headings and captions not law—1997 c 392: See notes following RCW 74.39A.009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: State v. Mitchell, 169 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mitchell, 169 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 7× “Mitchell now claims insufficient evidence supports her conviction because the terms “child” and “dependent person” are mutually exclusive in the criminal mistreatment statute, RCW 9A.42.020(1). She contends insufficient evidence exists to show she harmed a dependent person.”
State v. Koch, 157 Wash. App. 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Statutory Duty To Act ¶14 Koch contends that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he had a duty to act to provide *29 medical care for his ailing father and that the presentation of alternative means for establishing the statutory duty deprived him of a…”
State v. Jackson, 976 P.2d 1229 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “For example, it has done so in RCW 9A.42.020, the first degree criminal mistreatment statute, and in RCW 9A.”
State v. Mitchell, 237 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 9× “Mitchell now claims insufficient evidence supports her conviction because the terms "child" and "dependent person" are mutually exclusive in the criminal mistreatment statute, RCW 9A.42.020(1). She contends insufficient evidence exists to show she harmed a dependent person.”
State v. Jackson, 944 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “[7] EMT Penquite, Nurses Keith and Leith, Drs.”
State v. Womac, 160 P.3d 40 (Wash. 2007). “" RCW 9A.42.020(1). "A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or a person employed to provide to the child or…”
State v. Chenoweth, 354 P.3d 13 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “, RCW 9A.42.020, .030, .035 (defining first, second, and third degree criminal mistreatment).”
State v. Daniels, 124 Wash. App. 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “020(1) defines criminal mistreatment: A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, or a person employed to provide to the child or dependent person the basic necessities of life is guilty of criminal mistreatment in the…”
State v. Womac, 123 P.3d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[7] RCW 9A.42.020,.030. [8] RCW 9A.36.120(1)(b)(i).”
State v. Trebilcock, 341 P.3d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “” RCW 9A.42.020. To find the ongoing pattern aggravating factor, the fact finder must find that the abuse occurred over a “prolonged period of time.”
State v. McGary, 93 P.3d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “This suggests that the Legislature intended to direct the second degree criminal mistreatment statute at those who recklessly endangered their dependents by withholding basic necessities. Additionally, the first, third, and fourth degree criminal mistreatment statutes clearly…”
State v. Jackson, 976 P.2d 1229 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “For example, it has done so in RCW 9A.42.020, the first degree criminal mistreatment statute, and in RCW 9A.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.020(1) — 18 cases
State v. Mitchell, 169 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 2010). “Mitchell now claims insufficient evidence supports her conviction because the terms “child” and “dependent person” are mutually exclusive in the criminal mistreatment statute, RCW 9A.42.020(1). She contends insufficient evidence exists to show she harmed a dependent person.”
State v. Mitchell, 237 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2010). “Mitchell now claims insufficient evidence supports her conviction because the terms "child" and "dependent person" are mutually exclusive in the criminal mistreatment statute, RCW 9A.42.020(1). She contends insufficient evidence exists to show she harmed a dependent person.”
State v. Jackson, 976 P.2d 1229 (Wash. 1999). “For example, it has done so in RCW 9A.42.020, the first degree criminal mistreatment statute, and in RCW 9A.”
State v. Womac, 160 P.3d 40 (Wash. 2007). “" RCW 9A.42.020(1). "A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or a person employed to provide to the child or…”
State v. Jackson, 944 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “[7] EMT Penquite, Nurses Keith and Leith, Drs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.020(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mitchell, 169 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 2010). “Mitchell now claims insufficient evidence supports her conviction because the terms “child” and “dependent person” are mutually exclusive in the criminal mistreatment statute, RCW 9A.42.020(1). She contends insufficient evidence exists to show she harmed a dependent person.”
State v. Mitchell, 237 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2010). “Mitchell now claims insufficient evidence supports her conviction because the terms "child" and "dependent person" are mutually exclusive in the criminal mistreatment statute, RCW 9A.42.020(1). She contends insufficient evidence exists to show she harmed a dependent person.”
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.