Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The arraigning judge upon consideration of the petition may continue the arraignment and refer such person for a diagnostic investigation and evaluation to:
(1) An approved substance use disorder treatment program as designated in chapter 71.24 RCW if the petition alleges a substance use disorder;
(2) An approved mental health center if the petition alleges a mental problem;
(3) The department of social and health services if the petition is brought under RCW 10.05.020(2); or
(4) An approved state-certified domestic violence treatment provider pursuant to RCW 43.20A.735 if the petition alleges a domestic violence behavior problem.
[ 2023 c 102 s 17; 2021 c 215 s 116; 2019 c 263 s 704; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 526; 2002 c 219 s 8; 1999 c 143 s 42; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Effective date—2019 c 263 ss 501-504, 601, 602, and 701-708: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Intent—Finding—2002 c 219: See note following RCW 9A.42.037.
PDF

RCW 10.05.030

Arraignment Continued—Treatment Referral. (Effective January 1, 2026.)

The arraigning judge upon consideration of the petition may continue the arraignment and refer such person for a diagnostic investigation and evaluation to:
(1) A state-approved behavioral health agency, approved for substance use disorder services, as designated in chapter 71.24 RCW if the petition alleges a substance use disorder;
(2) A state-approved behavioral health agency, approved for mental health services, as designated in chapter 71.24 RCW, if the petition alleges a mental health disorder;
(3) The department of children, youth, and families if the petition is brought under RCW 10.05.020(2); or
(4) An approved state-certified domestic violence treatment provider pursuant to RCW 43.20A.735 if the petition alleges a domestic violence behavior problem.
[ 2024 c 306 s 14; 2023 c 102 s 17; 2021 c 215 s 116; 2019 c 263 s 704; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 526; 2002 c 219 s 8; 1999 c 143 s 42; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Effective date—2019 c 263 ss 501-504, 601, 602, and 701-708: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Intent—Finding—2002 c 219: See note following RCW 9A.42.037.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2018 · leading case: State v. Cascade Dist. Court, 621 P.2d 115 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cascade Dist. Court, 621 P.2d 115 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 7× “RCW 10.05.030. The covirt granted petitioner's motion over the prosecutor's objection and issued an order granting deferred prosecution.”
State v. Scott, 416 P.3d 1182 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “" RCW 10.05.030(3)(b). Unlike McNeil, who was convicted of aggravated first degree murder, Scott was convicted of the less serious crime of first degree murder.”
State v. Velasquez, 292 P.3d 92 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 10.05.030. The facility then conducts an investigation and examination to determine whether the person suffers from the problems described and if there is a probability that similar conduct will occur in the future if the problem is left untreated, whether extensive…”
State v. Hayes, 683 P.2d 237 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “RCW 10.05.030. The facility then devises a treatment plan which it submits to the court.”
State v. Vinge, 795 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “RCW 10.05.030 permits the arraigning judge to continue arraignment and refer the petitioner for a diagnostic evaluation at an approved treatment facility.”
In re Bufalini, 423 P.3d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶ 31 Schillberg considered whether the superior court could order a deferred prosecution absent the consent of the prosecutor under former RCW 10.05.030 (1975). 94 Wash.2d at 775 , 621 P.”
State v. DiLuzio, 90 P.3d 1141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “In Schillberg , our Supreme Court held that to the extent the deferred prosecution statute "permits the prosecutor to arbitrarily `veto' a discretionary decision of the courts, we strike as unconstitutional that portion of RCW 10.05.030 which requires the prosecutor's consent.”
State v. DiLuzio, 121 Wash. App. 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “In Schillberg, our Supreme Court held that to the extent the deferred prosecution statute “permits the prosecutor to arbitrarily ‘veto’ a discretionary decision of the courts, we strike as unconstitutional that portion of RCW 10.05.030 which requires the prosecutor’s consent.”
State ex rel. Schillberg v. Cascade Dist. Court, 604 P.2d 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 5× “RCW 10.05.030. Following an investigation and examination of the defendant, the treatment facility is required to *535 report to the court.”
State v. TRACY M., 720 P.2d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “At issue there was the constitutionality of RCW 10.05.030, the deferred prosecution statute, which provided the judge, with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney, could continue the arraignment and refer a defendant for evaluation to an approved alcoholism treatment…”
Prp Of Paul Bufalini (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Schillberg considered whether the superior court could order a deferred prosecution absent the consent of the prosecutor under former RCW 10.05.030 (1975). 94 Wn.2d at 775 . 4 This conclusion is consistent with In re Personal Restraint of Dyer, 157 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.030(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Scott, 416 P.3d 1182 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 10.05.030(3)(b). Unlike McNeil, who was convicted of aggravated first degree murder, Scott was convicted of the less serious crime of first degree murder.”
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.