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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.43.040 (2026)

Foreign conviction or acquittal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever, upon the trial of any person for a crime, it appears that the offense was committed in another state or country, under such circumstances that the courts of this state had jurisdiction thereof, and that the defendant has already been acquitted or convicted upon the merits, in a judicial proceeding conducted under the criminal laws of such state or country, founded upon the act or omission with respect to which he or she is upon trial, such former acquittal or conviction is a sufficient defense. Nothing in this section affects or prevents a prosecution in a court of this state of any person who has received administrative or nonjudicial punishment, civilian or military, in another state or country based upon the same act or omission.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1042; 1999 c 141 s 1; 1909 c 249 s 19; RRS s 2271.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: In Re the Pers. Restraint of Cook, 792 P.2d 506 (Wash. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Cook, 792 P.2d 506 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 13× “The first is whether petitioner may advance, in his second personal restraint petition, his claim that his state convictions violated RCW 10.43.040, which, after his conviction and appeal, was interpreted by this court as foreclosing identical state and federal prosecutions.”
State v. Moses, 37 P.3d 1216 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 23× “This case involves whether the double jeopardy statute, RCW 10.43.040, bars Cowlitz County from prosecuting a defendant previously convicted in tribal court for similar offenses based upon the same incident.”
State v. Moses, 37 P.3d 1216 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 23× “Because Indian tribes are not among the sovereigns included within the statute's meaning, we hold it does not.”
State v. Stivason, 142 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 32× “¶ 1 Jeffery Guy Stivason appeals the trial court's ruling that RCW 10.43.040 does not preclude state prosecution of a crime if the defendant had previously received only nonjudicial Article 15 military punishment for the same crime.”
State v. Stivason, 134 Wash. App. 648 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 29× “¶1 Jeffery Guy Stivason appeals the trial court’s ruling that RCW 10.43.040 does not preclude state prosecution of a crime if the defendant had previously received only nonjudicial Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.”
State v. Ivie, 961 P.2d 941 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 23× “Because both had been previously punished in a "captain's mast" proceeding before their naval commanding officer, the district court dismissed pending charges pursuant to RCW 10.43.040 which bars a criminal prosecution in Washington if another sovereign has already prosecuted…”
State v. Ivie, 136 Wash. 2d 173 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 23× “Because both had been previously punished in a “captain’s mast” proceeding before their naval commanding officer, the district court dismissed pending charges pursuant to RCW 10.43.040 which bars a criminal prosecution in Washington if another sovereign has already prosecuted…”
State v. Caliguri, 664 P.2d 466 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 8× “In this state, RCW 10.43.040 provides: Whenever, upon the trial of any person for a crime, it appears that the offense was committed in another state or country, under such circumstances that the courts of this state had jurisdiction thereof, and that the defendant has already…”
State v. Rudy, 719 P.2d 550 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 17× “§ 1951 (1982) (the Hobbs Act) was barred by the double jeopardy provisions of RCW 10.43.040. We reverse, holding that the State prosecution for burglary and kidnapping does not constitute double jeopardy under RCW 10.”
State v. Moses, 15 P.3d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “and Brian Moses, appeal the Cowlitz County Superior Court's refusal to recognize their statutory double jeopardy claims under RCW 10.43.040. We affirm. At all times material here, the defendants were members of the Tulalip Tribes.”
State v. Moses, 104 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “, and Brian Moses, appeal the Cowlitz County Superior Court’s refusal to recognize their statutory double jeopardy claims under RCW 10.43.040. We affirm. At all times material here, the defendants were members of the Tulalip Tribes.”
State v. Duncan, 765 P.2d 1300 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 11× “Issues Three principal issues are presented: (1) Did the trial court have the power to vacate its order of dismissal; (2) Does the United States Constitution prohibit Washington from prosecuting Duncan for the Hartley and Currier murders; and (3) Does RCW 10.43.040 prohibit…”
Show all 20 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.