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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2178-S.SL) ***
For the purposes of RCW 9A.48.070 through 9A.48.090 inclusive:
(1) "Physical damage," in addition to its ordinary meaning, shall include the total or partial alteration, damage, obliteration, or erasure of records, information, data, computer programs, or their computer representations, which are recorded for use in computers or the impairment, interruption, or interference with the use of such records, information, data, or computer programs, or the impairment, interruption, or interference with the use of any computer or services provided by computers. "Physical damage" also includes any diminution in the value of any property as the consequence of an act and the cost to repair any physical damage;
(2) If more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person and the physical damage to the property would, when considered separately, constitute mischief in the third degree because of value, then the value of the damages may be aggregated in one count. If the sum of the value of all the physical damages exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the defendant may be charged with and convicted of malicious mischief in the second degree.
[ 2013 c 322 s 1; 1984 c 273 s 4; 1981 c 260 s 2. Prior: 1979 ex.s. c 244 s 11; 1979 c 145 s 3; 1977 ex.s. c 174 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.48.100.]

Notes:

Effective date—1979 ex.s. c 244: See RCW 9A.44.902.
Action by owner of stolen livestock: RCW 4.24.320.
Computer trespass: RCW 9A.90.040 and 9A.90.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State v. Rivas, 168 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rivas, 168 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “RCW 9A.48.100(2). Specifically, If more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person and the physical *889 damage to the property would, when considered separately, constitute mischief in the third degree because of value,…”
State v. Rivas, 278 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “RCW 9A.48.100(2). Specifically, *691 If more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person and the physical damage to the property would, when considered separately, constitute mischief in the third degree because of value,…”
State v. Newcomb, 160 Wash. App. 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “¶17 The State also was required to prove damages in excess of $1,500 to support the first degree malicious mischief charge, and it submitted an estimate of the road’s repair costs to satisfy that element.”
State of Washington v. Gary Bruce Farnworth, 398 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “" RCW 9A.48.100(2). We reversed the conviction of Benjamin Rivas because the State failed to plead a common scheme or plan.”
State v. Wooten, 312 P.3d 41 (Wash. 2013). “Former RCW 9A.48.100(1) (1984) lists two definitions of “physical damage”: the first is its *903 “ordinary meaning” and the second is, among other data-related definitions that are not relevant in this case, “any diminution in the value of any property as the consequence of an…”
State v. Lopez, 20 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In its oral ruling the court stated that the only evidence regarding the broken globe was that offered by the State.”
State v. Gilbert, 902 P.2d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “For the purpose of determining the degree of malicious mischief, damages are defined in RCW 9A.48.100: Damages, in addition to its ordinary meaning, "includes any diminution in the value of any property as the consequence of an act.”
State v. Newcomb, 246 P.3d 1286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “¶ 17 The State also was required to prove damages in excess of $1,500 to support the first degree malicious mischief charge, and it submitted an estimate of the road's repair costs to satisfy that element.”
State v. Lopez, 20 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 9A.48.100(1). "Malice may be inferred from an act done in wilful disregard of the *982 rights of another, or an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse[.”
State Of Washington v. Darnell Parks, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “However, under RCW 9A.48.100(2), a person can be convicted of second degree malicious mischief “[i]f more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person” and the aggregate value of the damages exceeds $250.”
State v. K.R., 282 P.3d 1112 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.48.100(2). ¶15 The effect of the aggregation statute is shown in State v.”
State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant v. Mikala Mcculley, Appellant/cr-respondent (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “100 on appeal. The comments explaining WPIC 88.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.100(1) — 10 cases
State v. Wooten, 312 P.3d 41 (Wash. 2013). “Former RCW 9A.48.100(1) (1984) lists two definitions of “physical damage”: the first is its *903 “ordinary meaning” and the second is, among other data-related definitions that are not relevant in this case, “any diminution in the value of any property as the consequence of an…”
State v. Newcomb, 160 Wash. App. 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶17 The State also was required to prove damages in excess of $1,500 to support the first degree malicious mischief charge, and it submitted an estimate of the road’s repair costs to satisfy that element.”
State v. Lopez, 20 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In its oral ruling the court stated that the only evidence regarding the broken globe was that offered by the State.”
State v. Newcomb, 246 P.3d 1286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 17 The State also was required to prove damages in excess of $1,500 to support the first degree malicious mischief charge, and it submitted an estimate of the road's repair costs to satisfy that element.”
State v. Lopez, 20 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 9A.48.100(1). "Malice may be inferred from an act done in wilful disregard of the *982 rights of another, or an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse[.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.48.100(2) — 7 cases
State v. Rivas, 168 Wash. App. 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.48.100(2). Specifically, If more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person and the physical *889 damage to the property would, when considered separately, constitute mischief in the third degree because of value,…”
State v. Rivas, 278 P.3d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.48.100(2). Specifically, *691 If more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person and the physical damage to the property would, when considered separately, constitute mischief in the third degree because of value,…”
State of Washington v. Gary Bruce Farnworth, 398 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “" RCW 9A.48.100(2). We reversed the conviction of Benjamin Rivas because the State failed to plead a common scheme or plan.”
State Of Washington v. Darnell Parks, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “However, under RCW 9A.48.100(2), a person can be convicted of second degree malicious mischief “[i]f more than one item of property is physically damaged as a result of a common scheme or plan by a person” and the aggregate value of the damages exceeds $250.”
State v. K.R., 282 P.3d 1112 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.48.100(2). ¶15 The effect of the aggregation statute is shown in State v.”
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.