Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.64
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.64.010 (2026)

Bigamy

✓ 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 bigamy if he or she intentionally marries or purports to marry another person when either person has a living spouse.
(2) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that at the time of the subsequent marriage or purported marriage:
(a) The actor reasonably believed that the prior spouse was dead; or
(b) A court had entered a judgment purporting to terminate or annul any prior disqualifying marriage and the actor did not know that such judgment was invalid; or
(c) The actor reasonably believed that he or she was legally eligible to marry.
(3) The limitation imposed by RCW 9A.04.080 on commencing a prosecution for bigamy does not begin to run until the death of the prior or subsequent spouse of the actor or until a court enters a judgment terminating or annulling the prior or subsequent marriage.
(4) Bigamy is a class C felony.
[ 2011 c 336 s 385; 1986 c 257 s 14; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.64.010.]

Notes:

Severability—1986 c 257: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: State v. Smith, 610 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 610 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “070; bigamy, RCW 9A.64.010; incest, RCW 9A.64.020. I find it grossly disproportionate to include the mere possession of over 40 grams of marijuana in the same category as the crimes cataloged above.”
Estes v. State, 546 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “01 (2011); Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.64.010 (2011); Mont.”
State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). “300(4) (theft of a firearm); RCW 9A.64.010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.”
State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). “300(4) (theft of a firearm); RCW 9A.64.010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.”
State v. Seek, 37 P.3d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “— Donald Leroy Seek was charged and convicted of one count of bigamy under RCW 9A.64.010. The *878 court interpreted RCW 9A.”
State v. Rivera, 977 P.2d 1247 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 9A.64.010(1). We begin by noting that the State may not benefit from any presumption against the accused in a criminal case.”
State v. Pang, 940 P.2d 1293 (Wash. 1997). “080, within seven years after their commission; for bigamy, within three years of the time specified in RCW 9A.64.010; for all other offenses the punishment of which may be imprisonment in the state correctional institution, within three years after their commission; two years…”
State v. Pang, 940 P.2d 1293 (Wash. 1997). “080, within seven years after their commission; for bigamy, within three years of the time specified in RCW 9A.64.010; for all other offenses the punishment of which may be imprisonment in the state correctional institution, within three years after their commission; two years…”
Rotana Ek v. Layheang San (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “j This is also prohibited under the Bigamy statute (RCW 9A.64.010)[.] Therefore the marriage between Layheang San and Rotan Ek is invalid.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.64.010(1) — 1 case
State v. Rivera, 977 P.2d 1247 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 9A.64.010(1). We begin by noting that the State may not benefit from any presumption against the accused in a criminal case.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.64.010(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). “300(4) (theft of a firearm); RCW 9A.64.010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.”
State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). “300(4) (theft of a firearm); RCW 9A.64.010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.64.010(2)(c) — 1 case
State v. Seek, 37 P.3d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “— Donald Leroy Seek was charged and convicted of one count of bigamy under RCW 9A.64.010. The *878 court interpreted RCW 9A.”
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.