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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.82.085 (2026)

Bars on certain prosecutions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In a criminal prosecution alleging a violation of RCW 9A.82.060 or 9A.82.080, the state is barred from joining any offense other than the offenses alleged to be part of the pattern of criminal profiteering activity. When a defendant has been tried criminally for a violation of RCW 9A.82.060 or 9A.82.080, the state is barred from subsequently charging the defendant with an offense that was alleged to be part of the pattern of criminal profiteering activity for which he or she was tried.
[ 2001 c 222 s 12. Prior: 1985 c 455 s 9.]

Notes:

Purpose—Effective date—2001 c 222: See notes following RCW 9A.82.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: State v. Linville, 423 P.3d 842 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Linville, 423 P.3d 842 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 11× “¶ 2 The question in this case is whether the CPA's "joinder bar" rule, RCW 9A.82.085, permits both predicate crimes and nonpredicate crimes to be joined in a single "leading organized crime" information.”
State Of Washington v. Kenneth Alfred Linville, Jr., 199 Wash. App. 461 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “4 At no point did Linville argue that joinder of any offenses was improper under RCW 9A.82.085. ¶5 During the jury trial, the State presented testimony from numerous codefendants who identified Linville as the instigator and leader of the burglary scheme.”
State v. Hayes, 262 P.3d 538 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Hayes has abandoned any argument that RCW 9A.82.085 is relevant to a double jeopardy analysis, as he does not cite that statute on appeal.”
State Of Washington v. Kenneth Alfred Linville, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “47916-8-II prohibited by RCW 9A.82.085,4 (2) a conviction for the first alternative means of trafficking in stolen property cannot rest on accomplice liability, and (3) his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated when the trial court instructed the jury…”
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.