Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.070 (2026)

Motion to set aside indictment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The motion to set aside the indictment can be made by the defendant on one or more of the following grounds, and must be sustained:
(1) When any person, other than the grand jurors, was present before the grand jury when the question was taken upon the finding of the indictment, or when any person, other than the grand jurors, was present before the grand jury during the investigation of the charge, except as required or permitted by law;
(2) If the grand jury were not selected, drawn, summoned, impaneled, or sworn as prescribed by law.
[ 1983 c 3 s 12; 1957 c 10 s 1; Code 1881 s 1046; RRS s 2099. FORMER PART OF SECTION: Code 1881 s 1047; RRS s 2100, now codified as RCW 10.40.075.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1960–1990 · leading case: State v. Beck, 349 P.2d 387 (Wash. 1960).
State v. Beck, 349 P.2d 387 (Wash. 1960). · cites it 4× “The motion to set aside and dismiss the indictment was based upon RCW 10.40.070, which provides that an indictment must be set aside when it appears: "(4) That the grand jury were not selected, drawn, summoned, impaneled, or sworn as prescribed by law.”
State v. Greco, 787 P.2d 940 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Did Griffies Have a Conflict of Interest? The first issue is whether Prosecutor Griffies was not authorized to participate in the special inquiry because of a conflict of interest.”
State v. Twitchell, 378 P.2d 444 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 2× “*406 RCW 10.40.070 provides that a motion to set aside the indictment must be sustained if it is made on any one of certain enumerated grounds, one of which is "(3) When any person, other than the grand jurors, was present before the grand jury .”
State v. Carroll, 500 P.2d 115 (Wash. 1972). “RCW 10.40.070 provides in part: The motion to set aside the indictment can be made by the defendant on one or more of the following grounds, and must be sustained.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.070(3) — 1 case
State v. Greco, 787 P.2d 940 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “Did Griffies Have a Conflict of Interest? The first issue is whether Prosecutor Griffies was not authorized to participate in the special inquiry because of a conflict of interest.”
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.