Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.050 (2026)

Other crime in committing burglary punishable

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who, in the commission of a burglary shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefor as well as for the burglary, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.52.050.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 125 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Sweet, 980 P.2d 1223 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sweet, 980 P.2d 1223 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 9× “QUESTIONS PRESENTED The primary question presented in these consolidated cases is whether the burglary "anti-merger" statute, RCW 9A.52.050, prevents merger of convictions for first-degree assault and first-degree burglary.”
State v. Collicott, 827 P.2d 263 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 8× “[ [11] ] We must look to the burglary antimerger statute, RCW 9A.52.050, to determine any limitation on authority of the sentencing judge under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, RCW 9.”
State v. Tili, 139 Wash. 2d 107 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 5× “In Johnson , this court noted that the burglary antimerger statute, RCW 9A.52.050, showed a legislative intent to require multiple punishments.”
State v. Tili, 985 P.2d 365 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 5× “In Johnson , this court noted that the burglary anti-merger statute, RCW 9A.52.050, showed a legislative intent to require multiple punishments.”
State v. Arndt, 453 P.3d 696 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “Legislative intent may be express,see RCW 9A.52.050,'° or implied. Freeman, 153 Wn.”
State v. Lessley, 798 P.2d 302 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 13× “RCW 9A.52.050 reads: Every person who, in the commission of a burglary shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefor as well as for the burglary, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately.”
State v. Freeman, 108 P.3d 753 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.52.050. Sometimes, there is sufficient evidence of legislative intent that we are confident concluding that the legislature intended to punish two offenses arising out of the same bad act separately without more analysis.”
State v. Dunbar, 798 P.2d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 12× “[4-6] As the dissent indicates, application of the burglary antimerger statute, RCW 9A.52.050, would lead to the opposite conclusion in this case, and in all other cases in which burglary is one of the crimes charged.”
State v. Johnson, 600 P.2d 1249 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “That the legislature was mindful of the question whether multiple punishments should be imposed for crimes incidental to a given offense is evidenced in RCW 9A.52.050. That section provides: *677 Every person who, in the commission of a burglary shall commit any other crime, may…”
State v. Bonds, 653 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.52.050 provides: Every person who, in the commission of a burglary shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefor as well as for the burglary, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately.”
State v. Knight, 309 P.3d 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “ted the same criminal conduct as all of her other convictions — ignores the trial court’s independent legislative authority to punish the burglary separately under the burglary antimerger statute: Every person who, in the commission of a burglary shall commit any other crime,…”
State v. Elmore, 154 Wash. App. 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “” RCW 9A.52.050. The plain language of RCW 9A.”
Show all 125 citing cases →
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.