Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.060 (2026)
Reckless burning—Defense
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In any prosecution for the crime of reckless burning in the first or second degrees, it shall be a defense if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) No person other than the defendant had a possessory, or pecuniary interest in the damaged or endangered property, or if other persons had such an interest, all of them consented to the defendant's conduct; and
(b) The defendant's sole intent was to destroy or damage the property for a lawful purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1983–2011 · leading case: State v. McCullum, 656 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1983).
State v. McCullum, 656 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1983). “030 (sexual offenses); RCW 9A.48.060 (reckless burning); RCW 9A.”
State v. Acosta, 683 P.2d 1069 (Wash. 1984). “030 (sexual offenses); RCW 9A.48.060 (reckless burning); and RCW 9A.”
State v. Coates, 735 P.2d 64 (Wash. 1987). “030 (sexual offenses); RCW 9A.48.060 (reckless burning); and RCW 9A.”
State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). “110(3) (stalking); RCW 9A.48.060 (reckless burning in the first or second degree); RCW 9A.”
State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). “110(3) (stalking); RCW 9A.48.060 (reckless burning in the first or second degree); RCW 9A.”
State v. Knapp, 773 P.2d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “030 (sexual offenses); RCW 9A.48.060 (reckless burning); and RCW 9A.”
State v. Evans, 265 P.3d 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “060(1) (defining unlawful issuance of checks or drafts that prohibits “[a]ny person” from making and delivering a check to “another person” with intent to defraud, while knowing that the bank upon which the check is drawn has insufficient funds to meet such check); see also RCW…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.060(a) — 1 case
State v. Evans, 265 P.3d 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “060(1) (defining unlawful issuance of checks or drafts that prohibits “[a]ny person” from making and delivering a check to “another person” with intent to defraud, while knowing that the bank upon which the check is drawn has insufficient funds to meet such check); see also RCW…”
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.