Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110 (2026)
Intimidating 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 intimidating a witness if a person, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person;
(b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify;
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(d) Induce that person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, not to have the crime or the abuse or neglect of a minor child prosecuted, or not to give truthful or complete information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) A person also is guilty of intimidating a witness if the person directs a threat to a former witness because of the witness's role in an official proceeding.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) "Threat" means:
(i) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(ii) Threat as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(27).
(b) "Current or prospective witness" means:
(i) A person endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person whom the actor believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding; or
(iii) A person whom the actor has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(c) "Former witness" means:
(i) A person who testified in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person who was endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(iii) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have been called as a witness if a hearing or trial had been held; or
(iv) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have provided information related to a criminal investigation or an investigation into the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(4) Intimidating a witness is a class B felony.
(5) For purposes of this section, each instance of an attempt to intimidate a witness constitutes a separate offense.
[ 2011 c 165 s 2; 1997 c 29 s 1; 1994 c 271 s 204; 1985 c 327 s 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 s 18; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.72.110.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2011 c 166 s 2, changing subsection (27) to subsection (28).
Intent—2011 c 165: "In response to State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010), the legislature intends to clarify that each instance of an attempt to intimidate or tamper with a witness constitutes a separate violation for purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under the statutes governing tampering with a witness and intimidating a witness." [ 2011 c 165 s 1.]
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
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 77
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State v. Brown, 173 P.3d 245 (Wash. 2007).
State v. Brown, 173 P.3d 245 (Wash. 2007). “The information charged this offense in language appearing in a 1994 former version of RCW 9A.72.110 language that was deleted by the legislature when it amended the statute in 1997.”
State v. Brown, 162 Wash. 2d 422 (Wash. 2007). “The information charged this offense in language appearing in a 1994 former version of RCW 9A.72.110 — language that was deleted by the legislature when it amended the statute in 1997.”
State v. Chino, 72 P.3d 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “rson, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings;…”
State v. Chino, 117 Wash. App. 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or (d)…”
State v. Ozuna, 359 P.3d 739 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 9A.72.110(2). The statute defines a “threat” to mean “[t]o communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent” to harm another in various ways.”
State v. Marko, 27 P.3d 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
State v. Marko, 107 Wash. App. 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
State v. Morgan, 261 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 7 Here, Morgan challenges the sufficiency of that part of the second amended information charging him with conspiracy to intimidate a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a) and RCW 9A.28.040. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 8.”
State v. Anderson, 111 Wash. App. 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Anderson with two counts of intimidating a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(2). One count was for threats regarding Mrs.”
State v. Meneses, 169 Wash. 2d 586 (Wash. 2010). “230; RCW 9A.72.110. Meneses contends that the legislature must expressly indicate its intent that multiple punishments apply; otherwise, the rule of lenity and the double jeopardy clause require that acts violating both statutes be punished only once.”
State v. Boiko, 131 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “He argues that there is no evidence to establish all of the possible means of committing the crime of witness intimidation under RCW 9A.72.110(1). Mr. Boiko acknowledges that there is evidence establishing some of the means of committing the crime, but the jury was instructed on…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Connick, 28 P.3d 729 (Wash. 2001). “(dissenting) — Jeffrey Connick pleaded guilty to intimidating a witness contrary to RCW 9A.72.110. Intimidation of a witness is a seriousness level VI crime.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(1) — 20 cases
State v. Boiko, 131 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “He argues that there is no evidence to establish all of the possible means of committing the crime of witness intimidation under RCW 9A.72.110(1). Mr. Boiko acknowledges that there is evidence establishing some of the means of committing the crime, but the jury was instructed on…”
State v. Early, 853 P.2d 964 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Chino, 72 P.3d 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “rson, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings;…”
State v. Chino, 117 Wash. App. 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or (d)…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Connick, 28 P.3d 729 (Wash. 2001). “(dissenting) — Jeffrey Connick pleaded guilty to intimidating a witness contrary to RCW 9A.72.110. Intimidation of a witness is a seriousness level VI crime.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(1)(a) — 10 cases
State v. Brown, 173 P.3d 245 (Wash. 2007). “The information charged this offense in language appearing in a 1994 former version of RCW 9A.72.110 language that was deleted by the legislature when it amended the statute in 1997.”
State v. Morgan, 261 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 7 Here, Morgan challenges the sufficiency of that part of the second amended information charging him with conspiracy to intimidate a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a) and RCW 9A.28.040. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 8.”
State v. Brown, 162 Wash. 2d 422 (Wash. 2007). “The information charged this offense in language appearing in a 1994 former version of RCW 9A.72.110 — language that was deleted by the legislature when it amended the statute in 1997.”
State v. Chino, 72 P.3d 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “rson, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings;…”
State v. Marko, 27 P.3d 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Boiko, 128 P.3d 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(1)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Chino, 72 P.3d 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “rson, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings;…”
State v. Jensen, 789 P.2d 772 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
State Of Washington v. William Neal France (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(1)(d) — 9 cases
State v. Chino, 72 P.3d 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “rson, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings;…”
State v. Marko, 27 P.3d 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
State v. Marko, 107 Wash. App. 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
State v. Meneses, 238 P.3d 495 (Wash. 2010).
State v. Champion, 140 P.3d 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(2) — 8 cases
State v. Ozuna, 359 P.3d 739 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 9A.72.110(2). The statute defines a “threat” to mean “[t]o communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent” to harm another in various ways.”
State v. Anderson, 111 Wash. App. 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Anderson with two counts of intimidating a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(2). One count was for threats regarding Mrs.”
State v. Anderson, 44 P.3d 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. King, 145 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Fuentes, 150 Wash. App. 444 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3) — 2 cases
State v. Besio, 907 P.2d 1220 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Fuentes, 208 P.3d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(a) — 6 cases
State v. France, 329 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2014).
State v. Anderson, 111 Wash. App. 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Anderson with two counts of intimidating a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(2). One count was for threats regarding Mrs.”
State v. Fuentes, 150 Wash. App. 444 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Anderson, 44 P.3d 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State of Washington v. William Ernesto Menjivar Hernandez (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(a)(i) — 6 cases
State v. Marko, 27 P.3d 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
State v. Marko, 107 Wash. App. 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “] RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a)-(d). The State charged Marko with, and the jury was instructed on, the means under RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington v. William Ricardo Lowe (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State of Washington v. James Thomas III (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State of Washington v. James Thomas III (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(a)(ii) — 3 cases
State v. King, 145 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. King, 135 Wash. App. 662 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State Of Washington v. William Ricardo Lowe (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(b) — 1 case
State of Washington v. William Ernesto Menjivar Hernandez (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(b)(iii) — 2 cases
State v. Meneses, 169 Wash. 2d 586 (Wash. 2010). “230; RCW 9A.72.110. Meneses contends that the legislature must expressly indicate its intent that multiple punishments apply; otherwise, the rule of lenity and the double jeopardy clause require that acts violating both statutes be punished only once.”
State v. Meneses, 238 P.3d 495 (Wash. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(c)(i) — 1 case
Pellum v. City of Fed. Way (W.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(3)(c)(iv) — 2 cases
State v. Anderson, 111 Wash. App. 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Anderson with two counts of intimidating a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(2). One count was for threats regarding Mrs.”
State v. Anderson, 44 P.3d 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(4) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Anthony D. Singh (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Chino, 117 Wash. App. 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or (d)…”
State v. Morgan, 261 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 7 Here, Morgan challenges the sufficiency of that part of the second amended information charging him with conspiracy to intimidate a witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.110(1)(a) and RCW 9A.28.040. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 8.”
State v. Savaria, 919 P.2d 1263 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Frayer v. People, 684 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1984).
State of Washington v. Justin Ryan Graham (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Boiko, 131 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “He argues that there is no evidence to establish all of the possible means of committing the crime of witness intimidation under RCW 9A.72.110(1). Mr. Boiko acknowledges that there is evidence establishing some of the means of committing the crime, but the jury was instructed on…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Chino, 117 Wash. App. 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or (d)…”
State v. Jensen, 789 P.2d 772 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.72.110(l)(d) — 4 cases
State v. Chino, 117 Wash. App. 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to: (a) Influence the testimony of that person; (b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify; (c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or (d)…”
State v. Meneses, 169 Wash. 2d 586 (Wash. 2010). “230; RCW 9A.72.110. Meneses contends that the legislature must expressly indicate its intent that multiple punishments apply; otherwise, the rule of lenity and the double jeopardy clause require that acts violating both statutes be punished only once.”
State v. Hooper, 997 P.2d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Champion, 140 P.3d 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
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.