Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.01
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.01.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No offense committed and no penalty or forfeiture incurred previous to the time when any statutory provision shall be repealed, whether such repeal be express or implied, shall be affected by such repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the repealing act, and no prosecution for any offense, or for the recovery of any penalty or forfeiture, pending at the time any statutory provision shall be repealed, whether such repeal be express or implied, shall be affected by such repeal, but the same shall proceed in all respects, as if such provision had not been repealed, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the repealing act. Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act, and every such amendatory or repealing statute shall be so construed as to save all criminal and penal proceedings, and proceedings to recover forfeitures, pending at the time of its enactment, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared therein.
[ 1901 ex.s. c 6 s 1; RRS s 2006.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: State v. Jenks, 487 P.3d 482 (Wash. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jenks, 487 P.3d 482 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 30× “345 and RCW 10.01.040. State v. Jenks (Alan D.), No.”
State Of Washington v. Alan D. Jenks, 459 P.3d 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 24× “EFFECT OF 2019 AMENDMENT TO RCW 9.94A.030(33) The question here is whether we must review Jenks’s sentence under the law in effect at the time Jenks committed his current offense or under the law in effect at the time we decide his appeal.”
State of Washington v. Justin Robert Rose, 365 P.3d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 17× “As a result, offenses are prosecuted under the law in effect at the time they were committed "unless," the statute provides, "a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act.”
State v. Pillatos, 150 P.3d 1130 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 4× “¶ 20 Defendants argue that because of RCW 10.01.040, the new statutory procedures do not apply to them.”
State v. Pillatos, 159 Wash. 2d 459 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, .”
State v. Kane, 5 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The central issue is the effect to be given to the general criminal prosecution saving statute, RCW 10.01.040. The saving statute presumptively saves all offenses already committed, and all penalties or forfeitures already incurred, from being affected by the amendment or repeal…”
State v. Kane, 5 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The central issue is the effect to be given to the general criminal prosecution saving statute, RCW 10.01.040. The saving statute presumptively saves all offenses already committed, and all penalties or forfeitures already incurred, from being affected by the amendment or repeal…”
State Of Washington v. Terysa Ann Brake, 476 P.3d 1094 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “RCW 10.01.040 states that “[n]o offense committed .”
State v. Ross, 95 P.3d 1225 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “525(12) lacked any language evidencing that the legislature intended these amendments to apply retroactively, and thus, pursuant to the savings clause, RCW 10.01.040, courts must sentence a defendant in accordance with the law in effect on the date he or she committed the crime.”
State v. Ross, 152 Wash. 2d 220 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “525(12) lacked any language evidencing that the legislature intended these amendments to apply retroactively, and thus, pursuant to the savings clause, RCW 10.01.040, courts must sentence a defendant in accordance with the law in effect on the date he or she *237 committed the…”
State v. McNeal, 175 P.3d 1139 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “345, he is entitled to resentencing under the laws in effect at the time he committed the current offenses, which did not allow juries to make findings supporting exceptional sentences; (2) RCW 10.01.040, the "savings clause," precludes the application of the 2007 amendments;…”
State v. McNeal, 142 Wash. App. 777 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “345, he is *790 entitled to resentencing under the laws in effect at the time he committed the current offenses, which did not allow juries to make findings supporting exceptional sentences; (2) RCW 10.01.040, the “savings clause,” precludes the application of the 2007…”
Show all 122 citing cases →
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.