Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.090 (2026)

Bribing a witness

✓ 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 bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, with intent to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person; or
(b) Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him or her to testify; or
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding to which he or she has been legally summoned; or
(d) Induce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) Bribing a witness is a class B felony.
[ 1994 c 271 s 202; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 s 16; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.72.090.]

Notes:

Finding—1994 c 271: "The legislature finds that witness intimidation and witness tampering serve to thwart both the effective prosecution of criminal conduct in the state of Washington and resolution of child dependencies.
Further, the legislature finds that intimidating persons who have information pertaining to a future proceeding serves to prevent both the bringing of a charge and prosecution of such future proceeding. The legislature finds that the period before a crime or child abuse or neglect is reported is when a victim is most vulnerable to influence, both from the defendant or from people acting on behalf of the defendant and a time when the defendant is most able to threaten, bribe, and/or persuade potential witnesses to leave the jurisdiction or withhold information from law enforcement agencies.
The legislature moreover finds that a criminal defendant's admonishment or demand to a witness to "drop the charges" is intimidating to witnesses or other persons with information relevant to a criminal proceeding.
The legislature finds, therefore, that tampering with and/or intimidating witnesses or other persons with information relevant to a present or future criminal or child dependency proceeding are grave offenses which adversely impact the state's ability to promote public safety and prosecute criminal behavior." [ 1994 c 271 s 201.]
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271: See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47: See note following RCW 9.41.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: In re the Pers. Restraint of Sarausad, 109 Wash. App. 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Pers. Restraint of Sarausad, 109 Wash. App. 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “BRIBERY, DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING Next, Sarausad argues that (1) the State violated RCW 9A.72.090, the bribery statute, by offering to make lenient recommendations to his cohorts in exchange for their truthful testimony; 13 (2) his protection against double…”
Sarausad v. State, 39 P.3d 308 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “*320 Sarausad argues that (1) the State violated RCW 9A.72.090, the bribery statute, by offering to make lenient recommendations to his cohorts in exchange for their truthful testimony; [14] (2) his protection against double jeopardy was violated when he was charged and…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Howerton, 36 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “090(l)(a) provides in relevant part: (1) A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a…”
State v. Thorpe, 754 P.2d 1050 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “4 *589 Thorpe also challenges the bribery judgment, contending that RCW 9A.72.090(1) 5 is unconstitutionally vague, and either contains an invalid presumption of corrupt intent or is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of police power if there is no implied criminal intent.”
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Simmons, 757 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1988). “4(b), RCW 9A.72.090 and .120. The record also supports the hearing officer's conclusions of the other disciplinary rules that Simmons violated.”
State v. Henjum, 150 P.3d 1170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The State must also show an intent to influence testimony, or to induce someone not to testify, or "[i]nduce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
State v. Henjum, 136 Wash. App. 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The State must also show an intent to influence testimony, to induce someone not to testify, or to “[finduce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Jeremy David Rosenbaum (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The jury also had to find that he acted with the intent to influence the testimony of that person or to induce that person to avoid legal process or to absent herself from an official proceeding.”
State v. Wimbish, 995 P.2d 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “110; RCW 9A.72.090. A jury convicted Wimbish of one count of second-degree child molestation of S.”
State v. Wimbish, 100 Wash. App. 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “110; RCW 9A.72.090. A jury convicted Wimbish of one count of second degree child molestation of S.”
State of Washington v. Juan Carlos Cortez Barajas (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 9A.72.090. The unique element of witness intimidation is use of a threat.”
State Of Washington, V Kenneth Sean McMillian (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 9A.72.090(1) states, A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a person whom he or she…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.090(1) — 5 cases
State v. Thorpe, 754 P.2d 1050 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “4 *589 Thorpe also challenges the bribery judgment, contending that RCW 9A.72.090(1) 5 is unconstitutionally vague, and either contains an invalid presumption of corrupt intent or is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of police power if there is no implied criminal intent.”
State v. Henjum, 150 P.3d 1170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The State must also show an intent to influence testimony, or to induce someone not to testify, or "[i]nduce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
State v. Henjum, 136 Wash. App. 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The State must also show an intent to influence testimony, to induce someone not to testify, or to “[finduce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Jeremy David Rosenbaum (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The jury also had to find that he acted with the intent to influence the testimony of that person or to induce that person to avoid legal process or to absent herself from an official proceeding.”
State Of Washington, V Kenneth Sean McMillian (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 9A.72.090(1) states, A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a person whom he or she…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.090(1)(a) — 3 cases
Sarausad v. State, 39 P.3d 308 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “*320 Sarausad argues that (1) the State violated RCW 9A.72.090, the bribery statute, by offering to make lenient recommendations to his cohorts in exchange for their truthful testimony; [14] (2) his protection against double jeopardy was violated when he was charged and…”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Jeremy David Rosenbaum (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The jury also had to find that he acted with the intent to influence the testimony of that person or to induce that person to avoid legal process or to absent herself from an official proceeding.”
In Re The Custody Of: B.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.090(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Henjum, 150 P.3d 1170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The State must also show an intent to influence testimony, or to induce someone not to testify, or "[i]nduce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.090(l)(a) — 2 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Sarausad, 109 Wash. App. 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “BRIBERY, DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND CONSECUTIVE SENTENCING Next, Sarausad argues that (1) the State violated RCW 9A.72.090, the bribery statute, by offering to make lenient recommendations to his cohorts in exchange for their truthful testimony; 13 (2) his protection against double…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Howerton, 36 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “090(l)(a) provides in relevant part: (1) A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.090(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Henjum, 136 Wash. App. 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 9A.72.090(1). The State must also show an intent to influence testimony, to induce someone not to testify, or to “[finduce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
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.