Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080 (2026)

Malicious mischief in the second 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 person is guilty of malicious mischief in the second degree if he or she knowingly and maliciously:
(a) Causes physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding seven hundred fifty dollars;
(b) Creates a substantial risk of interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public, by physically damaging or tampering with an emergency vehicle or property of the state, a political subdivision thereof, or a public utility or mode of public transportation, power, or communication; or
(c) Creates a substantial risk of interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public by, without lawful authority, physically damaging, destroying, or removing an official ballot deposit box or ballot drop box or, without lawful authority, damaging, destroying, removing, or tampering with the contents thereof.
(2) Malicious mischief in the second degree is a class C felony.
[ 2017 c 283 s 2; 2009 c 431 s 5; 1994 c 261 s 17; 1979 c 145 s 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.48.080.]

Notes:

Applicability—2009 c 431: See note following RCW 4.24.230.
Finding—Intent—1994 c 261: See note following RCW 16.52.011.
Action by owner of stolen livestock: RCW 4.24.320.
Property crime database, liability: RCW 4.24.340.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 10× “(concurring) — While I agree with the majority that “property of another” includes the one-half interest of a spouse in community property, I write separately to make it clear that only the value of the victim’s one-half interest in the community property may be considered when…”
State v. Turner, 275 P.3d 356 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “His essential argument is that kicking out the police car window and putting the car out of service for a day is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of "substantial risk of interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public" required by RCW…”
State v. Rivas, 168 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “RCW 9A.48.080(1), .100(2). ¶16 A defendant acts pursuant to a common scheme or plan when he or she (1) commits several crimes, each of which constitutes a part of his or her larger plan or (2) he or she develops a plan and carries it out multiple times to achieve distinct, but…”
State v. Smith, 610 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “040; second-degree malicious mischief, RCW 9A.48.080; riot with a deadly weapon, RCW 9A.”
State v. Webb, 824 P.2d 1257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “IV Webb's final contention is that he is not guilty as a matter of law of any damage to the property that was in community ownership because RCW 9A.48.080(l)(a) requires that the damage be to the "property of another".”
State v. Barry, 339 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶23 The five photographs depicting “KKK” spray painted on various items on the three injured properties are relevant to the crimes charged because they show physical damage on each of the three properties.”
State v. Gilbert, 902 P.2d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Gilbert was charged with second degree malicious mischief, RCW 9A.48.080. 1 Mr. Gilbert elected to be tried to the court without a jury.”
State v. Hernandez, 120 Wash. App. 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “RCW 9A.48.080(1). Maliciousness may be inferred from an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse.”
State v. Coria, 17 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “" RCW 9A.48.080. The malicious mischief statute contains no definition of property of another.”
State v. B.E.K., 141 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “with second degree malicious mischief for physically damaging an emergency vehicle, RCW 9A.48.080(l)(b). 1 B.E.K. pleaded guilty.”
State v. Rivas, 278 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “100(2) (emphasis added); RCW 9A.48.080(1). Thus, the plain statutory language compels the conclusion that a common scheme or plan is an essential element of second degree malicious mischief where the State aggregates the value of damages to more than one item of property to…”
State v. Coria, 105 Wash. App. 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “” RCW 9A.48.080. The malicious mischief statute contains no definition of property of another.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(1) — 10 cases
State v. Rivas, 168 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.48.080(1), .100(2). ¶16 A defendant acts pursuant to a common scheme or plan when he or she (1) commits several crimes, each of which constitutes a part of his or her larger plan or (2) he or she develops a plan and carries it out multiple times to achieve distinct, but…”
State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002). “(concurring) — While I agree with the majority that “property of another” includes the one-half interest of a spouse in community property, I write separately to make it clear that only the value of the victim’s one-half interest in the community property may be considered when…”
State v. Rivas, 278 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “100(2) (emphasis added); RCW 9A.48.080(1). Thus, the plain statutory language compels the conclusion that a common scheme or plan is an essential element of second degree malicious mischief where the State aggregates the value of damages to more than one item of property to…”
In Re Crace, 236 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Hernandez, 120 Wash. App. 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 9A.48.080(1). Maliciousness may be inferred from an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(1)(a) — 28 cases
State v. Rivas, 168 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.48.080(1), .100(2). ¶16 A defendant acts pursuant to a common scheme or plan when he or she (1) commits several crimes, each of which constitutes a part of his or her larger plan or (2) he or she develops a plan and carries it out multiple times to achieve distinct, but…”
State v. Mollichi, 936 P.2d 408 (Wash. 1997).
State v. Ratliff, 730 P.2d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Coria, 17 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" RCW 9A.48.080. The malicious mischief statute contains no definition of property of another.”
State v. Rivas, 278 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “100(2) (emphasis added); RCW 9A.48.080(1). Thus, the plain statutory language compels the conclusion that a common scheme or plan is an essential element of second degree malicious mischief where the State aggregates the value of damages to more than one item of property to…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(1)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Turner, 275 P.3d 356 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “His essential argument is that kicking out the police car window and putting the car out of service for a day is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of "substantial risk of interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public" required by RCW…”
State v. BEK, 172 P.3d 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Hernandez, 85 P.3d 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State of Washington v. Ryan Andrew Barone (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. David Wayne Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(2) — 4 cases
State v. Thomas, 788 P.2d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. BEK, 172 P.3d 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant V. Jorge Nava Martinez, Jr., Appellant/cr-respondent (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington, V. Daniel James Gilmore (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(c) — 1 case
State v. Long, 991 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(l)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002). “(concurring) — While I agree with the majority that “property of another” includes the one-half interest of a spouse in community property, I write separately to make it clear that only the value of the victim’s one-half interest in the community property may be considered when…”
State v. Webb, 824 P.2d 1257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “IV Webb's final contention is that he is not guilty as a matter of law of any damage to the property that was in community ownership because RCW 9A.48.080(l)(a) requires that the damage be to the "property of another".”
State v. Barry, 339 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶23 The five photographs depicting “KKK” spray painted on various items on the three injured properties are relevant to the crimes charged because they show physical damage on each of the three properties.”
State v. Mollichi, 936 P.2d 408 (Wash. 1997).
State v. Coria, 105 Wash. App. 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “” RCW 9A.48.080. The malicious mischief statute contains no definition of property of another.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.080(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Turner, 275 P.3d 356 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “His essential argument is that kicking out the police car window and putting the car out of service for a day is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of "substantial risk of interruption or impairment of service rendered to the public" required by RCW…”
State v. B.E.K., 141 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “with second degree malicious mischief for physically damaging an emergency vehicle, RCW 9A.48.080(l)(b). 1 B.E.K. pleaded guilty.”
State v. Hernandez, 120 Wash. App. 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 9A.48.080(1). Maliciousness may be inferred from an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse.”
State v. Hoffman, 664 P.2d 1259 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983).
State v. Gardner, 16 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
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.