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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.052 (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 must contain—
(1) The title of the action, specifying the name of the court to which the indictment or information is presented and the names of the parties;
(2) A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.
[ 1891 c 28 s 20; Code 1881 s 1004; 1873 p 224 s 187; 1869 p 240 s 182; RRS s 2055. Formerly RCW 10.37.050, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1965–2018 · leading case: State v. Zornes, 475 P.2d 109 (Wash. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Zornes, 475 P.2d 109 (Wash. 1970). · cites it 2× “The information, without amplification and without specifying the type or kind, simply charged "Possession of Narcotics." Defendants understood, however, that the term "narcotics" in the information meant cannabis, for they did not demand a bill of particulars nor did they claim…”
State v. Davis, 808 P.2d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “[5] See RCW 10.37.052. [6] In Leach , the Washington Supreme Court stated: It may be concluded from these authorities that the "essential elements" rule requires that a charging document allege facts supporting every element of the offense, in addition to adequately identifying…”
State v. Valdobinos, 858 P.2d 199 (Wash. 1993). “2d 86 (1991), we adopted the federal 2-part test for applying the essential elements rule: "(1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or she was nonetheless…”
State v. Barnes, 43 P.3d 490 (Wash. 2002). “050 and RCW 10.37.052. [39] CrR 2.1(a); see WASH.”
State v. Royse, 403 P.2d 838 (Wash. 1965). “) RCW 10.37.052 reads in part: The indictment or information must contain— (2) A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Benavidez, 160 Wash. App. 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “3d 274 (2010). ¶9 Generally, an indictment or information must be worded so that a person of common understanding will know what acts constitute the criminal offense.”
In Re Benavidez, 246 P.3d 842 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 10.37.052. The exact words of the relevant statute need not be used if words conveying the same meaning are used to give reasonable notice to the defendant of the charge.”
State Of Washington, V Azariah C. Ross (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 10.37.052(2) also clarifies that an indictment or information must contain “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
State of Washington v. Douglas James Conner (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “at 170 (citing RCW 10.37.052). The charging document need not use the exact words of the relevant statute, but is sufficient if the words conveying the same meaning are used to give reasonable notice to the defendant of the charge.”
State of Washington v. Dion Taries Jordan Baker (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 10.37.052 provides that an information must contain the title of the action and "[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is…”
State of Washington v. Nikolas F. Campbell (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 10.37.052(2). The exact words of the relevant statute need not be used if words conveying the same meaning are used to give reasonable notice to the defendant of the charge.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.052(2) — 2 cases
State Of Washington, V Azariah C. Ross (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 10.37.052(2) also clarifies that an indictment or information must contain “[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
State of Washington v. Nikolas F. Campbell (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 10.37.052(2). The exact words of the relevant statute need not be used if words conveying the same meaning are used to give reasonable notice to the defendant of the charge.”
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.