Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.76
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Contraband" means any article or thing which a person confined in a detention facility or a secure facility under chapter 71.09 RCW is prohibited from obtaining or possessing by statute, rule, regulation, or order of a court;
(2) "Custody" means restraint pursuant to a lawful arrest or an order of a court, or any period of service on a work crew: PROVIDED, That custody pursuant to chapter 13.34 RCW and RCW * 74.13.020 and 74.13.031 and chapter 13.32A RCW shall not be deemed custody for purposes of this chapter;
(3) "Detention facility" means any place used for the confinement of a person (a) arrested for, charged with or convicted of an offense, or (b) charged with being or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender as defined in RCW 13.40.020 as now existing or hereafter amended, or (c) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (d) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.34 RCW or chapter 13.32A RCW, or (e) in any work release, furlough, or other such facility or program;
(4) "Uncontrollable circumstances" means an act of nature such as a flood, earthquake, or fire, or a medical condition that requires immediate hospitalization or treatment, or an act of a human being such as an automobile accident or threats of death, forcible sexual attack, or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future for which there is no time for a complaint to the authorities and no time or opportunity to resort to the courts.
[ 2013 c 43 s 1. Prior: 2009 c 549 s 1003; 2001 c 264 s 4; 1991 c 181 s 6; 1979 c 155 s 35; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 53; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.76.010.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 74.13.020 no longer refers to "custody."
Effective date—2001 c 264: See note following RCW 9A.76.110.
Effective date—Severability—1979 c 155: See notes following RCW 13.04.011.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Ammons, 136 Wash. 2d 453 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ammons, 136 Wash. 2d 453 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 6× “In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court concluded that: On January 12, 1996, the defendant, having been convicted of a felony, was serving a 30-day partial confinement sentence in the Clark County work crew program; his failure to report was willful; and…”
State v. Ammons, 963 P.2d 812 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 6× “In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court concluded that: On January 12, 1996, the defendant, having been convicted of a felony, was serving a 30-day partial confinement sentence in the Clark County work crew program; his failure to report was willful; and…”
State v. Gomez, 152 Wash. App. 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “130 (escape in the third degree). That question turns on whether the configuration of the facility and Mr.”
State v. Slater, 486 P.3d 873 (Wash. 2021). “” RCW 9A.76.010(4). 16 State v. Slater (Samuel David Obert), No.”
State v. Shriner, 681 P.2d 237 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “In the case before us, both statutes are clearly applicable.”
State v. Peters, 667 P.2d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “They claim they did not escape from any place where they were confined and therefore cannot be convicted of second degree escape.”
State v. Hall, 706 P.2d 1074 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e). Additionally, case law has engrafted a culpability element, that is, the prosecution must show the defendant " knew that his actions would result in leaving confinement without permission.”
State v. Danforth, 643 P.2d 882 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 9A.76.010. State v. Yallup, 25 Wn. App.”
State v. Hendrix, 35 P.3d 1189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “*1190 Because the State has failed to fulfill its burden to show that Hendrix was either "arrested for, charged with or convicted of an offense," or that she was "charged with being or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender," as defined by RCW 9A.76.010, we reverse. She properly…”
State v. LaCaze, 630 P.2d 436 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “" Smith v. State, 361 A.2d 237, 238 (Del. 1976).”
State v. Law, 38 P.3d 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 136 (citing RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e)). However, Mr. Law contends the State was required to charge him with the less severe, more specific crime of failure to return from furlough, RCW 72.”
State v. Law, 110 Wash. App. 36 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “at 431 (citing RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e)). However, Mr. Law contends the State was required to charge him with the less severe, more specific crime of failure to return from furlough, former RCW 72.”
Show all 62 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(1) — 17 cases
State v. Ammons, 136 Wash. 2d 453 (Wash. 1998). “In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court concluded that: On January 12, 1996, the defendant, having been convicted of a felony, was serving a 30-day partial confinement sentence in the Clark County work crew program; his failure to report was willful; and…”
State v. Ammons, 963 P.2d 812 (Wash. 1998). “In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court concluded that: On January 12, 1996, the defendant, having been convicted of a felony, was serving a 30-day partial confinement sentence in the Clark County work crew program; his failure to report was willful; and…”
State v. Gomez, 152 Wash. App. 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “130 (escape in the third degree). That question turns on whether the configuration of the facility and Mr.”
State v. Solis, 685 P.2d 672 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Bryant, 608 P.2d 1261 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(2) — 14 cases
State v. Peters, 667 P.2d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “They claim they did not escape from any place where they were confined and therefore cannot be convicted of second degree escape.”
State v. Gomez, 152 Wash. App. 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “130 (escape in the third degree). That question turns on whether the configuration of the facility and Mr.”
State v. Perrett, 936 P.2d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Smeltzer, 939 P.2d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Basford, 783 P.2d 129 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(2)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Gomez, 152 Wash. App. 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “130 (escape in the third degree). That question turns on whether the configuration of the facility and Mr.”
State v. Hendrix, 35 P.3d 1189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “*1190 Because the State has failed to fulfill its burden to show that Hendrix was either "arrested for, charged with or convicted of an offense," or that she was "charged with being or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender," as defined by RCW 9A.76.010, we reverse. She properly…”
State v. Gomez, 217 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Hendrix, 109 Wash. App. 508 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Walker (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Hendrix, 35 P.3d 1189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “*1190 Because the State has failed to fulfill its burden to show that Hendrix was either "arrested for, charged with or convicted of an offense," or that she was "charged with being or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender," as defined by RCW 9A.76.010, we reverse. She properly…”
State v. Hendrix, 109 Wash. App. 508 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(2)(d) — 4 cases
State v. Yallup, 608 P.2d 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Hendrix, 35 P.3d 1189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “*1190 Because the State has failed to fulfill its burden to show that Hendrix was either "arrested for, charged with or convicted of an offense," or that she was "charged with being or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender," as defined by RCW 9A.76.010, we reverse. She properly…”
State v. Hendrix, 109 Wash. App. 508 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Gomez, 217 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(2)(e) — 9 cases
State v. Hall, 706 P.2d 1074 (Wash. 1985). “RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e). Additionally, case law has engrafted a culpability element, that is, the prosecution must show the defendant " knew that his actions would result in leaving confinement without permission.”
State v. LaCaze, 630 P.2d 436 (Wash. 1981). “" Smith v. State, 361 A.2d 237, 238 (Del. 1976).”
State v. Law, 38 P.3d 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 136 (citing RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e)). However, Mr. Law contends the State was required to charge him with the less severe, more specific crime of failure to return from furlough, RCW 72.”
State v. Law, 110 Wash. App. 36 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “at 431 (citing RCW 9A.76.010(2)(e)). However, Mr. Law contends the State was required to charge him with the less severe, more specific crime of failure to return from furlough, former RCW 72.”
State v. Peters, 667 P.2d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “They claim they did not escape from any place where they were confined and therefore cannot be convicted of second degree escape.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(3) — 5 cases
State of Washington v. Javier Sanchez (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
State Of Washington v. Michael Todd Fernandez (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State of Washington v. David Raymond Mullins (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington v. Joshua Mason Webb (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
State of Washington v. Martin Juarez, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(3)(a) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Walker (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
State of Washington v. Martin Juarez, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(3)(e) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Joshua Mason Webb (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.010(4) — 13 cases
State v. Slater, 486 P.3d 873 (Wash. 2021). “” RCW 9A.76.010(4). 16 State v. Slater (Samuel David Obert), No.”
State v. O'Brien, 267 P.3d 422 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. White, 137 Wash. App. 227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Fredrick, 123 Wash. App. 347 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State of Washington v. Christopher Lee McCabe, 526 P.3d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
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.