Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.43.020 (2026)

Offense embraces lower degree and included offenses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When the defendant has been convicted or acquitted upon an indictment or information of an offense consisting of different degrees, the conviction or acquittal shall be a bar to another indictment or information for the offense charged in the former, or for any lower degree of that offense, or for an offense necessarily included therein.
[ 1891 c 28 s 74; Code 1881 s 1096; 1873 p 238 s 257; 1854 p 120 s 121; RRS s 2166.]

Notes:

Bar as to prosecution for same crime in another degree, or attempt: RCW 10.43.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1970–2007 · leading case: State v. Linton, 132 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Linton, 132 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 4× “By the plain language of RCW 10.43.020 and .050, the legislature has provided its own protection against successive trials where an accused has been either convicted or acquitted for any degree of that offense.”
State v. Ahluwalia, 22 P.3d 1254 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 7× “050 and RCW 10.43.020 restate the constitutional double jeopardy provisions and the two statutes contemplate a final adjudication as to each offense charged.”
State v. Russell, 657 P.2d 338 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “015, the provisions of RCW 10.43.020 and RCW 10.43.050 3 preclude amending an information after an acquittal.”
State v. Schwab, 988 P.2d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “Next, the State argues that RCW 10.43.020 evinces legislative intent that double jeopardy be limited to cases of lesser-included and inferior-degree offenses: When the defendant has been convicted or acquitted upon an indictment or information of an offense consisting of…”
State v. Murawski, 142 Wash. App. 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “8 RCW 10.43.020 and RCW 10.43.050 are essentially statutory restatements of double jeopardy prohibitions.”
State v. Netling, 731 P.2d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “050 with RCW 10.43.020 (referring to "necessarily included" offenses).”
State v. Harris, 469 P.2d 937 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “y of the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata, charging in the plea that the present informations were in violation of his constitutional rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and also under article 1, section 9 of the…”
State v. Funkhouser, 637 P.2d 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “See RCW 10.43.020, .050; State v. Peck, 146 Wash.”
State v. Galen, 487 P.2d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “” RCW 10.43.020. See also Const. art. 1, § 9; State v.”
State v. Ahluwalia, 22 P.3d 1254 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 7× “050 and RCW 10.43.020 restate the constitutional double jeopardy provisions and the two statutes contemplate a final adjudication as to each offense charged.”
State v. Padilla, 928 P.2d 1141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Both sides also agree trial is not barred by the provisions of RCW 10.43.020, which prohibits subsequent indictments based on an offense for which the defendant has been previously convicted or acquitted.”
State v. Murawski, 173 P.3d 994 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “[8] RCW 10.43.020 and RCW 10.43.050 are essentially statutory restatements of double jeopardy prohibitions.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.