Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.140 (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) "Possessing stolen property" means knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.
(2) The fact that the person who stole the property has not been convicted, apprehended, or identified is not a defense to a charge of possessing stolen property.
(3) When a person has in his or her possession, or under his or her control, stolen access devices issued in the names of two or more persons, or ten or more stolen merchandise pallets, or ten or more stolen beverage crates, or a combination of ten or more stolen merchandise pallets and beverage crates, as defined under RCW 9A.56.010, he or she is presumed to know that they are stolen.
(4) The presumption in subsection (3) of this section is rebuttable by evidence raising a reasonable inference that the possession of such stolen access devices, merchandise pallets, or beverage crates was without knowledge that they were stolen.
(5) In any prosecution for possessing stolen property, it is a sufficient defense that the property was merchandise pallets that were received by a pallet recycler or repairer in the ordinary course of its business.
[ 2004 c 122 s 2; 1998 c 236 s 3; 1987 c 140 s 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.56.140.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 137 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Tyler, 422 P.3d 436 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tyler, 422 P.3d 436 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 19× “This latter construction aligns with RCW 9A.56.140 as enacted, prohibiting acts where one would knowingly "receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property.”
State Of Washington, V David Palaukekala Makekau, 378 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “” RCW 9A.56.140(1) defines possessing stolen property, in part, as “knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property.”
State v. Porter, 375 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 6× “The charging document also alleged that Porter knowingly possessed property he knew to be stolen, and it referenced RCW 9A.56.140, which provides the applicable definition of “possess.”
State v. Hayes, 262 P.3d 538 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “¶29 By contrast, RCW 9A.56.140, on which instruction 23 is based, is not intended to define a particular crime.”
State Of Washington v. Robert Lee Tyler, 195 Wash. App. 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “RCW 9A.56.140(1) (emphasis added). ¶47 Indeed, our Supreme Court recently ruled that the language of RCW 9A.”
State v. Satterthwaite, 344 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “The charging document did not mention withholding or appropriating the stolen vehicle to the use of a person other than the owner and did not cite RCW 9A.56.140. Thus, the necessary facts of “withhold or appropriate” do not appear in any form, nor by fair construction can they…”
State v. Smith, 744 P.2d 1096 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “RCW 9A.56.140(1). It is true, as appellant notes, that knowledge the property is stolen is an element that must be proved at trial in order to convict a defendant of possession of stolen property.”
State of Washington v. Alex Michael Jones, 463 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “In turn, RCW 9A.56.140(1) defines “possessing stolen property:” “Possessing stolen property” means knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use of any person other…”
State v. McCullum, 656 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “040 (presumption of intent to deprive or defraud — burglary); RCW 9A.56.140 (presumption of knowledge that credit cards are stolen).”
State v. McReynolds, 71 P.3d 663 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “In adopting RCW 9A.56.140, the Legislature "essentially incorporated" the prior statute's provision governing possession of stolen property, former RCW 9.”
State v. McReynolds, 117 Wash. App. 309 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “In adopting RCW 9A.56.140, the legislature “essentially incorporated” the prior statute’s provision governing possession of stolen property, former RCW 9.”
State v. Rhinehart, 602 P.2d 1188 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 4× “*925 Petitioner was charged pursuant to RCW 9A.56.140(1) and 9A.56.150. The charge read: That the defendant .”
Show all 137 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.140(1) — 107 cases
State v. Tyler, 422 P.3d 436 (Wash. 2018). “This latter construction aligns with RCW 9A.56.140 as enacted, prohibiting acts where one would knowingly "receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property.”
State Of Washington, V David Palaukekala Makekau, 378 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “” RCW 9A.56.140(1) defines possessing stolen property, in part, as “knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property.”
State v. Porter, 375 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2016). “The charging document also alleged that Porter knowingly possessed property he knew to be stolen, and it referenced RCW 9A.56.140, which provides the applicable definition of “possess.”
State Of Washington v. Robert Lee Tyler, 195 Wash. App. 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9A.56.140(1) (emphasis added). ¶47 Indeed, our Supreme Court recently ruled that the language of RCW 9A.”
State v. Smith, 744 P.2d 1096 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 9A.56.140(1). It is true, as appellant notes, that knowledge the property is stolen is an element that must be proved at trial in order to convict a defendant of possession of stolen property.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.140(l) — 2 cases
State v. Satterthwaite, 344 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The charging document did not mention withholding or appropriating the stolen vehicle to the use of a person other than the owner and did not cite RCW 9A.56.140. Thus, the necessary facts of “withhold or appropriate” do not appear in any form, nor by fair construction can they…”
State of Washington v. Jesus Torres (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.