Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020 (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) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or
(ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or
(iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person who harasses another is guilty of a class C felony if any of the following apply: (i) The person has previously been convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order; (ii) the person harasses another person under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person; (iii) the person harasses a criminal justice participant or election official who is performing his or her official duties at the time the threat is made; or (iv) the person harasses a criminal justice participant or election official because of an action taken or decision made by the criminal justice participant or election official during the performance of his or her official duties. For the purposes of (b)(iii) and (iv) of this subsection, the fear from the threat must be a fear that a reasonable criminal justice participant or election official would have under all the circumstances. Threatening words do not constitute harassment if it is apparent to the criminal justice participant or election official that the person does not have the present and future ability to carry out the threat.
(3) Any criminal justice participant or election official who is a target for threats or harassment prohibited under subsection (2)(b)(iii) or (iv) of this section, and any person residing with him or her, shall be eligible for the address confidentiality program created under RCW 40.24.030.
(4) For purposes of this section, a criminal justice participant includes any (a) federal, state, or local law enforcement agency employee; (b) federal, state, or local prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney; (c) staff member of any adult corrections institution or local adult detention facility; (d) staff member of any juvenile corrections institution or local juvenile detention facility; (e) community corrections officer, probation, or parole officer; (f) member of the indeterminate sentence review board; (g) advocate from a crime victim/witness program; or (h) defense attorney.
(5) For the purposes of this section, an election official includes any staff member of the office of the secretary of state or staff member of a county auditor's office, regardless of whether the member is employed on a temporary or part-time basis, whose duties relate to voter registration or the processing of votes as provided in Title 29A RCW.
(6) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law.
[ 2024 c 292 s 1; 2023 c 102 s 16; 2011 c 64 s 1; 2003 c 53 s 69; 1999 c 27 s 2; 1997 c 105 s 1; 1992 c 186 s 2; 1985 c 288 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 292: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 26, 2024]." [ 2024 c 292 s 3.]
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Intent—1999 c 27: "It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking." [ 1999 c 27 s 1.]
Severability—1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 358 cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 22× “raises a number of statutory construction arguments, as well as First Amendment concerns that he urges require his reading of the statute.”
State v. Williams, 26 P.3d 890 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 25× “RCW 9A.46.020 prohibits threats to do an act intended to substantially harm another's physical or mental health.”
State v. Trey M., 383 P.3d 474 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 21× “seeks reversal of his three convictions for felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 (discussed below). The primary issue, as certified from the Court of Appeals, Division Three, to this court, is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v.”
State v. Williams, 144 Wash. 2d 197 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 21× “RCW 9A.46.020 prohibits threats to do an act intended to substantially harm another’s physical or mental health.”
State v. Smith, 759 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 34× “Two other criminal harassment statutes, already in place at the time RCW 9A.46.020 was enacted, address aggression and intimidation motivated by bigotry or other prejudices, RCW 9A.”
State v. Kilburn, 84 P.3d 1215 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 16× “Petitioner Martin Kilburn (Kilburn) claims that his juvenile conviction of felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 must be reversed because the State failed to prove that he actually intended to carry out the alleged threat made to a classmate and because his statements were…”
State v. Alvarez, 904 P.2d 754 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 20× “Alvarez seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division I, affirming a King County Superior Court (Juvenile Department) find *4 ing of "guilty” of harassment in violation of RCW 9A.46.020 and "guilty” of cruelty to animals in violation of former RCW 16.”
State v. Schaler, 169 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 14× “¶1 — This case concerns the interplay between the threats-to-kill provision of Washington’s harassment statute, RCW 9A.46.020, and the First Amendment’s limits on the criminalization of speech.”
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 8× “[6] ¶ 20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State Of Washington, V. Turner Lee Calloway, 550 P.3d 77 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 13× “57226-5-II We hold that the harassment statute, RCW 9A.46.020,2 is not facially unconstitutional.”
State v. Williams, 991 P.2d 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 39× “RCW 9A.46.020(1) (a) (iv) Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague Williams also contends that RCW 9A.”
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 7× “6 ¶20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
Show all 358 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1) — 76 cases
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). “raises a number of statutory construction arguments, as well as First Amendment concerns that he urges require his reading of the statute.”
Payne v. Child.'s Home Soc'y of Washington, Inc., 892 P.2d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Smith, 759 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1988). “Two other criminal harassment statutes, already in place at the time RCW 9A.46.020 was enacted, address aggression and intimidation motivated by bigotry or other prejudices, RCW 9A.”
Pedro Perez Perez v. Chad Wolf, 943 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2019).
State v. Schaler, 236 P.3d 858 (Wash. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(a) — 29 cases
State v. Trey M., 383 P.3d 474 (Wash. 2016). “seeks reversal of his three convictions for felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 (discussed below). The primary issue, as certified from the Court of Appeals, Division Three, to this court, is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v.”
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). “raises a number of statutory construction arguments, as well as First Amendment concerns that he urges require his reading of the statute.”
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). “6 ¶20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). “[6] ¶ 20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State v. E.J.Y., 55 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i) — 103 cases
State v. Williams, 26 P.3d 890 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 9A.46.020 prohibits threats to do an act intended to substantially harm another's physical or mental health.”
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). “raises a number of statutory construction arguments, as well as First Amendment concerns that he urges require his reading of the statute.”
State v. Williams, 144 Wash. 2d 197 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 9A.46.020 prohibits threats to do an act intended to substantially harm another’s physical or mental health.”
State v. Trey M., 383 P.3d 474 (Wash. 2016). “seeks reversal of his three convictions for felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 (discussed below). The primary issue, as certified from the Court of Appeals, Division Three, to this court, is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v.”
State v. Barnes, 243 P.3d 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(a)(ii) — 7 cases
In Re Blackburn, 232 P.3d 1091 (Wash. 2010).
State v. Gill, 13 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Gill, 13 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State Of Washington v. I.v.s.-l (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Sharon Doerr, V Del Ray Props., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(a)(iii) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Brett C. Everette (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(a)(iv) — 15 cases
State v. Williams, 26 P.3d 890 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 9A.46.020 prohibits threats to do an act intended to substantially harm another's physical or mental health.”
State v. Williams, 144 Wash. 2d 197 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 9A.46.020 prohibits threats to do an act intended to substantially harm another’s physical or mental health.”
State v. Williams, 991 P.2d 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 9A.46.020(1) (a) (iv) Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague Williams also contends that RCW 9A.”
State v. France, 329 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2014).
State v. Boyd, 155 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(b) — 31 cases
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). “raises a number of statutory construction arguments, as well as First Amendment concerns that he urges require his reading of the statute.”
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). “[6] ¶ 20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State v. Boyle, 335 P.3d 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Barragan, 102 Wash. App. 754 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Barragan, 9 P.3d 942 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2) — 18 cases
State v. Cross, 234 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Alvarez, 904 P.2d 754 (Wash. 1995). “Alvarez seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division I, affirming a King County Superior Court (Juvenile Department) find *4 ing of "guilty” of harassment in violation of RCW 9A.46.020 and "guilty” of cruelty to animals in violation of former RCW 16.”
State v. Elgin, 825 P.2d 314 (Wash. 1992).
State v. J.M., 28 P.3d 720 (Wash. 2001). “raises a number of statutory construction arguments, as well as First Amendment concerns that he urges require his reading of the statute.”
State v. Olsen, 325 P.3d 187 (Wash. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(a) — 7 cases
Pers. Restraint Petition of Lorne Frank Blaylock (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington, V Kenneth George Madarash (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State Of Washington v. Abdullahi Khalif Noor (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. Charles L. Burke (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. Abdullahi Khalif Noor (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b) — 63 cases
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). “[6] ¶ 20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State v. Boyle, 335 P.3d 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
United States v. Kenneth Door, 917 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019).
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). “6 ¶20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State v. Rattana Keo Phuong, 299 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b)(i) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Joe Joseph, 416 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Jeremy David Rosenbaum (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b)(ii) — 44 cases
State Of Washington v. Paul Noah Espinoza, 474 P.3d 570 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Trey M., 383 P.3d 474 (Wash. 2016). “seeks reversal of his three convictions for felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 (discussed below). The primary issue, as certified from the Court of Appeals, Division Three, to this court, is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v.”
Pedro Perez Perez v. Chad Wolf, 943 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Justin Werle, 877 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2017).
State v. Boyle, 335 P.3d 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b)(iii) — 14 cases
State of Washington v. K.D.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, V. Kalob Hackett (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington, V. Robert James Dagnon (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington, V. Robert James Dagnon (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State of Washington v. Timofey Gorlachev (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(b)(iv) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Keith Eric Brier (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, V Matthew Jack Little (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Becklin, 137 P.3d 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(4) — 2 cases
In re Recall of Sawant, 483 P.3d 752 (Wash. 2021).
State Of Washington, V. Earl Carlisle Mccormack (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(4)(a) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. Joshua W. Wills (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V. Kalob Hackett (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State of Washington v. Timofey Gorlachev (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(4)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Jared Bailey (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. GS, 17 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(b) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Javier Alejandr Macias-campos (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Robert W. Wold, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(b)(ii) — 1 case
Post-sentence Petition Of Wayne Alvin Holland (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(l)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Morales, 298 P.3d 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Kilburn, 84 P.3d 1215 (Wash. 2004). “Petitioner Martin Kilburn (Kilburn) claims that his juvenile conviction of felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 must be reversed because the State failed to prove that he actually intended to carry out the alleged threat made to a classmate and because his statements were…”
State v. Alvarez, 872 P.2d 1123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. G.S., 17 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Jachetta v. Warden Jt. Consol. Sch. Dist., 142 Wash. App. 819 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(l)(a)(i) — 18 cases
State v. Kilburn, 84 P.3d 1215 (Wash. 2004). “Petitioner Martin Kilburn (Kilburn) claims that his juvenile conviction of felony harassment under RCW 9A.46.020 must be reversed because the State failed to prove that he actually intended to carry out the alleged threat made to a classmate and because his statements were…”
State v. Barnes, 158 Wash. App. 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Morales, 298 P.3d 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Schaler, 169 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2010). “¶1 — This case concerns the interplay between the threats-to-kill provision of Washington’s harassment statute, RCW 9A.46.020, and the First Amendment’s limits on the criminalization of speech.”
United States v. Justin Werle, 877 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(l)(a)(iv) — 5 cases
State v. Williams, 991 P.2d 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 9A.46.020(1) (a) (iv) Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague Williams also contends that RCW 9A.”
State v. Boyd, 137 Wash. App. 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Strong, 272 P.3d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. France (Wash. 2014).
State v. France (Wash. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(l)(b) — 9 cases
State v. Mills, 109 P.3d 415 (Wash. 2005). “6 ¶20 We next examine the instructions in this case to determine whether the jury was clearly instructed as to all the elements to which it must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt before affirmatively answering the special verdict.”
State v. Alvarez, 872 P.2d 1123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. E.J.Y., 55 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Ragin, 972 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Johnson, 297 P.3d 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
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.