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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.056 (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 indictment or information is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of any of the following matters, which were formerly deemed defects or imperfections:
(1) For want of an allegation of the time or place of any material fact, when the time and place have been once stated;
(2) For the omission of any of the following allegations, namely: "With force and arms," "contrary to the form of the statute or the statutes," or "against the peace and dignity of the state;"
(3) For the omission to allege that the grand jury was impaneled, sworn, or charged;
(4) For any surplusage or repugnant allegation or for any repetition, when there is sufficient matter alleged to indicate clearly the offense and the person charged; nor
(5) For any other matter which was formerly deemed a defect or imperfection, but which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.
[ 1891 c 28 s 30; Code 1881 s 1015; 1873 p 227 s 198; 1869 p 242 s 193; RRS s 2066. Formerly RCW 10.37.050, part.]

Notes:

Ownership of property, proof of: RCW 10.58.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1961–2010 · leading case: State v. Tvedt, 153 Wash. 2d 705 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tvedt, 153 Wash. 2d 705 (Wash. 2005). “The State charged in count VIII that Tvedt took the business’s cash from or from the presence of Younce and Schaefer, and in count X charged Tvedt with taking cash from or from the *719 presence of Shepherd and Piper.”
State v. Tvedt, 107 P.3d 728 (Wash. 2005). “The State charged in count VIII that Tvedt took the business's cash from or from the presence of Younce and Schaefer, and in count X charged Tvedt with taking cash from or from the presence of Shepherd and Piper.”
State v. Valladares, 639 P.2d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “6 We note that RCW 10.37.056(5) provides in relevant part: "No indictment or information is insufficient.”
State v. Walker, 224 P.3d 814 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “054 all state various requirements for a charging document or explain when it is sufficient, and RCW 10.37.056 discusses “defects” that are insufficient to invalidate a charging document.”
State v. Stritmatter, 688 P.2d 499 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “2d 986 (1967); RCW 10.37.056(4). Appellant Stritmatter's conviction for failure to keep proper records of steelhead purchased and received is affirmed.”
State v. Jennen, 361 P.2d 739 (Wash. 1961). “We not only have statutes (RCW 10.37.056 (5) and 10.37.090) intended to relieve the administration of justice of the extremely technical objections referred to in Garland v.”
State v. Miller, 426 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1967). “See RCW 10.37.056(4); State v. Stevens, 41 Wn.”
State v. Jeske, 533 P.2d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.37.056 (2). 2 State v. *122 Walters, supra, notwithstanding.”
State v. Walker, 224 P.3d 814 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “054 all state various requirements for a charging document or explain when it is sufficient, and RCW 10.37.056 discusses "defects" that are insufficient to invalidate a charging document.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.056(2) — 1 case
State v. Jeske, 533 P.2d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “RCW 10.37.056 (2). 2 State v. *122 Walters, supra, notwithstanding.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.056(4) — 2 cases
State v. Stritmatter, 688 P.2d 499 (Wash. 1984). “2d 986 (1967); RCW 10.37.056(4). Appellant Stritmatter's conviction for failure to keep proper records of steelhead purchased and received is affirmed.”
State v. Miller, 426 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1967). “See RCW 10.37.056(4); State v. Stevens, 41 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.37.056(5) — 1 case
State v. Valladares, 639 P.2d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “6 We note that RCW 10.37.056(5) provides in relevant part: "No indictment or information is insufficient.”
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.