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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.400 (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)(a) A person is guilty of theft from a vulnerable adult in the first degree if he or she commits theft of property or services that exceed(s) five thousand dollars in value, other than a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010, of a vulnerable adult. The defendant must have known or should have known that the victim was a vulnerable adult.
(b) Theft from a vulnerable adult in the first degree is a class B felony.
(2)(a) A person is guilty of theft from a vulnerable adult in the second degree if he or she commits theft of property or services that exceed(s) seven hundred fifty dollars in value but does not exceed five thousand dollars in value, other than a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 or a motor vehicle, of a vulnerable adult. The defendant must have known or should have known that the victim was a vulnerable adult.
(b) Theft from a vulnerable adult in the second degree is a class C felony.
[ 2017 c 266 s 6.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2017 c 266: See note following RCW 9A.42.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2024–2026 · leading case: State Of Washington, V. Jenny Nicole Purple (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington, V. Jenny Nicole Purple (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.56.400(1)(a). To achieve this minimum amount, the State could have avoided the concerns raised in “multiple acts” cases by having the jury find that the multiple thefts were part of a “continuing course of conduct.”
State of Washington v. Kallee Ann Knudson (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “030, Washington’s first degree theft statute, provides the relevant language: (1) Except as provided in RCW 9A.56.400, a person is guilty of theft in the first degree if he or she commits theft of: .”
Brooks Jr v. Ballard (E.D. Wash. 2024). “070; Theft from a 17 Vulnerable Adult under RCW 9A.56.400; False Reporting under RCW 9A.”
Brooks Jr v. Ballard (E.D. Wash. 2024). “070; Theft from a 17 Vulnerable Adult under RCW 9A.56.400; False Reporting under RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington, V Eugene Cosby (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 9A.56.400(1)(a). To achieve this minimum amount, the State could have avoided the concerns raised in “multiple acts” cases by having the jury find that the multiple thefts were part of a “continuing course of conduct.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.400(1)(a) — 2 cases
State Of Washington, V. Jenny Nicole Purple (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 9A.56.400(1)(a). To achieve this minimum amount, the State could have avoided the concerns raised in “multiple acts” cases by having the jury find that the multiple thefts were part of a “continuing course of conduct.”
State Of Washington, V Eugene Cosby (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 9A.56.400(1)(a). To achieve this minimum amount, the State could have avoided the concerns raised in “multiple acts” cases by having the jury find that the multiple thefts were part of a “continuing course of conduct.”
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.