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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.100 (2026)

Compounding

✓ 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 compounding if:
(a) He or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that he or she will refrain from initiating a prosecution for a crime; or
(b) He or she confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any pecuniary benefit upon another pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such other person will refrain from initiating a prosecution for a crime.
(2) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense if established by a preponderance of the evidence that the pecuniary benefit did not exceed an amount which the defendant reasonably believed to be due as restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the crime.
(3) Compounding is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 s 402; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.76.100.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: State v. Scott, 757 P.2d 492 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Scott, 757 P.2d 492 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “Lay people, and many lawyers, would be unfamiliar with the definitions of crimes such as the following, were the terms not defined by listing the elements: "compounding" (RCW 9A.76.100); "barratry" (RCW 9.12.010).”
State v. McCullum, 656 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “060 (reckless burning); RCW 9A.76.100 (compounding a crime). The Legislature has also provided that a defendant may rebut certain inferences by presenting evidence raising reasonable inferences to the contrary: RCW 9A.”
State v. Acosta, 683 P.2d 1069 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “060 (reckless burning); and RCW 9A.76.100 (compounding a crime). The Legislature's silence on the burden of proof of self-defense, in contrast to its specificity on these other defenses, is a strong indication that the Legislature *616 did not intend to require a defendant to…”
State v. Coates, 735 P.2d 64 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “060 (reckless burning); and RCW 9A.76.100 (compounding a crime). The Legislature's silence on the burden of proof of self-defense, in contrast to its specificity on these other defenses, is a strong indication that the Legislature did not intend to require a defendant to prove…”
State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). “010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.76.”
State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). “010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.76.”
State v. Knapp, 773 P.2d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “060 (reckless burning); and RCW 9A.76.100 (compounding a crime). The statutory provision with respect to exceptions in cases of possession of a controlled substance is RCW 69.”
State Of Washington, V Larry Blackwell (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The judgment and sentence incorrectly stated that Blackwell had been convicted of first degree escape under RCW 9A.76.100(1) (compounding), rather than RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.100(1) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V Larry Blackwell (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “The judgment and sentence incorrectly stated that Blackwell had been convicted of first degree escape under RCW 9A.76.100(1) (compounding), rather than RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.100(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mannering, 75 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2003). “010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.76.”
State v. Mannering, 150 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2003). “010(2) (bigamy); RCW 9A.76.100(2) (compounding); RCW 9A.76.”
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.