Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.82
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.050 (2026)

Trafficking in stolen property in the first degree

✓ 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 who knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property for sale to others, or who knowingly traffics in stolen property, is guilty of trafficking in stolen property in the first degree.
(2) Trafficking in stolen property in the first degree is a class B felony.
[ 2003 c 53 s 86; 2001 c 222 s 8. Prior: 1984 c 270 s 5.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Purpose—Effective date—2001 c 222: See notes following RCW 9A.82.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Owens, 323 P.3d 1030 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Owens, 323 P.3d 1030 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 18× “The Court of Appeals, Division One, held that RCW 9A.82.050 describes eight alternative means of committing the crime, and because there was insufficient evidence to support at least one of those eight means, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction.”
State v. Lindsey, 311 P.3d 61 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “¶13 RCW 9A.82.050 defines “first degree trafficking in stolen property”: (1) A person who knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property for sale to others, or who knowingly traffics in stolen property, is guilty of…”
State Of Washington, V David Palaukekala Makekau, 378 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “The State points out that the words listed in the first clause of RCW 9A.82.050 do not address distinct acts because of how closely related those terms are.”
State v. Strohm, 879 P.2d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “ever *308 sold parts from or tried to sell parts from the flatbed truck (count 8), there was no evidence that he placed parts from the stolen vehicle on Kneeland’s red Mustang 1 (count 15), and that since there was no evidence as to who stole the Mustangs from Southgate Ford the…”
State v. Killingsworth, 269 P.3d 1064 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.82.050; RCW 9A.82.010(19); State v.”
State v. Michielli, 937 P.2d 587 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.82.050(2). Stolen property is defined as "property that has been obtained by theft, robbery, or extortion.”
State v. Stearman, 348 P.3d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “040 (conspiracy); RCW 9A.82.050 (trafficking). First degree trafficking can be proved in one of two ways: (1) knowingly initiating, organizing, planning, financing, directing, managing, or supervising the theft of property for sale to others or (2) knowingly trafficking in…”
State v. Barboza-Cortes, 451 P.3d 707 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “96397-5 By way of example, this court in Sandholm explained that the mere listing of eight actions in the trafficking in stolen property statute, RCW 9A.82.050, did not create eight alternative means but only two true alternatives.”
State v. Laico, 987 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “010(10) 2 created alternative means of trafficking in stolen property under RCW 9A.82.050(2). 3 We rejected this argument, concluding “that definition statutes do not create additional alternative means, ‘means within means’, of committing an offense.”
State v. Smith, 154 P.3d 873 (Wash. 2007). “2d 962 (1994) (definition of "traffic" included in jury instruction did not create alternative means of trafficking in stolen property under RCW 9A.82.050(2) because the definition did not add to the criminal statute and its only purpose is to prove understanding of the term…”
State v. Smith, 159 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2007). “2d 962 (1994) (definition of “traffic” included in jury instruction did not create alternative means of trafficking in stolen property under RCW 9A.82.050(2) because the definition did not add to the criminal statute and its only purpose is to prove understanding of the term…”
State Of Washington v. Koran Butler, 374 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” RCW 9A.82.050(1). There, the defendant argued that the eight different verbs articulated eight alternative means for committing the crime of first degree trafficking in stolen property.”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.050(1) — 43 cases
State v. Lindsey, 311 P.3d 61 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶13 RCW 9A.82.050 defines “first degree trafficking in stolen property”: (1) A person who knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property for sale to others, or who knowingly traffics in stolen property, is guilty of…”
State Of Washington, V David Palaukekala Makekau, 378 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The State points out that the words listed in the first clause of RCW 9A.82.050 do not address distinct acts because of how closely related those terms are.”
State v. Owens, 323 P.3d 1030 (Wash. 2014). “The Court of Appeals, Division One, held that RCW 9A.82.050 describes eight alternative means of committing the crime, and because there was insufficient evidence to support at least one of those eight means, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction.”
State v. Killingsworth, 269 P.3d 1064 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 9A.82.050; RCW 9A.82.010(19); State v.”
State Of Washington v. Koran Butler, 374 P.3d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “” RCW 9A.82.050(1). There, the defendant argued that the eight different verbs articulated eight alternative means for committing the crime of first degree trafficking in stolen property.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.050(2) — 14 cases
State v. Owens, 323 P.3d 1030 (Wash. 2014). “The Court of Appeals, Division One, held that RCW 9A.82.050 describes eight alternative means of committing the crime, and because there was insufficient evidence to support at least one of those eight means, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction.”
State v. Lindsey, 311 P.3d 61 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶13 RCW 9A.82.050 defines “first degree trafficking in stolen property”: (1) A person who knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property for sale to others, or who knowingly traffics in stolen property, is guilty of…”
State v. Strohm, 879 P.2d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “ever *308 sold parts from or tried to sell parts from the flatbed truck (count 8), there was no evidence that he placed parts from the stolen vehicle on Kneeland’s red Mustang 1 (count 15), and that since there was no evidence as to who stole the Mustangs from Southgate Ford the…”
State v. Michielli, 937 P.2d 587 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 9A.82.050(2). Stolen property is defined as "property that has been obtained by theft, robbery, or extortion.”
State v. Laico, 987 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “010(10) 2 created alternative means of trafficking in stolen property under RCW 9A.82.050(2). 3 We rejected this argument, concluding “that definition statutes do not create additional alternative means, ‘means within means’, of committing an offense.”
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.