Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.37
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.050 (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 indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom—
(1) That it is entitled in a court having authority to receive it;
(2) That it was found by a grand jury or prosecuting attorney of the county in which the court was held;
(3) That the defendant is named, or if his or her name cannot be discovered, that he or she is described by a fictitious name or by reference to a unique genetic sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid, with the statement that his or her real name is unknown;
(4) That the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, except where, as provided by law, the act, though done without the county in which the court is held, is triable therein;
(5) That the crime was committed at some time previous to the finding of the indictment or filing of the information, and within the time limited by law for the commencement of an action therefor;
(6) That the act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended;
(7) The act or omission charged as the crime is stated with such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the right of the case.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1037; 2000 c 92 s 3; 1891 c 28 s 29; Code 1881 s 1014; 1873 p 226 s 197; 1869 p 242 s 192; RRS s 2065. FORMER PARTS OF SECTION: (i) 1891 c 28 s 20; Code 1881 s 1004; 1873 p 224 s 187; 1869 p 240 s 182; RRS s 2055, now codified as RCW 10.37.052. (ii) 1891 c 28 s 22; Code 1881 s 1006; 1873 p 225 s 189; 1854 p 112 s 61; 1869 p 241 s 184; RRS s 2057, now codified as RCW 10.37.054. (iii) 1891 c 28 s 30; Code 1881 s 1015; 1873 p 227 s 198; 1869 p 242 s 193; RRS s 2066, now codified as RCW 10.37.056.]

Notes:

Intent—2000 c 92: See note following RCW 10.73.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2021 · leading case: State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 29× “The Schaffer court was referencing the statute currently codified at RCW 10.37.050, not analyzing whether the statute of limitations was an essential element as it pertains to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I of the Washington State Constitution.”
State v. Kjorsvik, 812 P.2d 86 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “) [36] Moreover, a state statute, RCW 10.37.050, provides in part: The ... information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom — .”
State v. Leach, 782 P.2d 552 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “See also RCW 10.37.050. However, it is not necessary to use the exact words of the statute if other words are used which equivalently or more extensively signify the words in the statute.”
State v. Goodman, 150 Wash. 2d 774 (Wash. 2004). “” Moreover, as the state statute governing the sufficiency of charging documents provides: The indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom— (6) That the act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise…”
State v. Goodman, 83 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2004). “(6) That the act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
State v. Ward, 148 Wash. 2d 803 (Wash. 2003). “2d 1097 (1998); RCW 10.37.050 (“The indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom .”
State v. Ward, 64 P.3d 640 (Wash. 2003). “2d 1097 (1998); RCW 10.37.050(6) ("The indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom .”
State v. Walker, 224 P.3d 814 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.37.050, .052, and .054 all state various requirements for a charging document or explain when it is sufficient, and RCW 10.”
State v. Hayes, 914 P.2d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “See also RCW 10.37.050(5), (7) (an information is sufficient if it indicates that the crime was committed before the information was filed and within the statute of limitation, and the crime is stated with enough certainty for the court to pronounce judgment upon conviction.”
State v. Campbell, 888 P.2d 1185 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 10.37.050(6). It is constitutionally adequate only if all essential elements of a crime are included in the document.”
State v. Marcum, 116 Wash. App. 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.37.050(6). The act or omission charged as the crime must be stated with “such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the right of the case.”
State v. Simon, 840 P.2d 172 (Wash. 1992). “Kjorsvik , at 110; RCW 10.37.050. No one of common understanding reading the information would know that knowledge of age is an element of the charge of promoting prostitution of a person under 18.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.050(4) — 1 case
State v. Karpov, 458 P.3d 1182 (Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.050(5) — 11 cases
State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019). “The Schaffer court was referencing the statute currently codified at RCW 10.37.050, not analyzing whether the statute of limitations was an essential element as it pertains to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I of the Washington State Constitution.”
State v. Hayes, 914 P.2d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “See also RCW 10.37.050(5), (7) (an information is sufficient if it indicates that the crime was committed before the information was filed and within the statute of limitation, and the crime is stated with enough certainty for the court to pronounce judgment upon conviction.”
State v. Walker, 224 P.3d 814 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 10.37.050, .052, and .054 all state various requirements for a charging document or explain when it is sufficient, and RCW 10.”
State v. Fischer, 699 P.2d 249 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Glover, 604 P.2d 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.050(6) — 18 cases
State v. Goodman, 150 Wash. 2d 774 (Wash. 2004). “” Moreover, as the state statute governing the sufficiency of charging documents provides: The indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom— (6) That the act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise…”
State v. Goodman, 83 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2004). “(6) That the act or omission charged as the crime is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
State v. Ward, 64 P.3d 640 (Wash. 2003). “2d 1097 (1998); RCW 10.37.050(6) ("The indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom .”
State v. Campbell, 888 P.2d 1185 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 10.37.050(6). It is constitutionally adequate only if all essential elements of a crime are included in the document.”
State v. Krajeski, 104 Wash. App. 377 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.050(7) — 2 cases
State v. Marcum, 116 Wash. App. 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 10.37.050(6). The act or omission charged as the crime must be stated with “such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the right of the case.”
State v. Marcum, 66 P.3d 690 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
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.