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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.43.050 (2026)

Acquittal, when a bar

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No order of dismissal or directed verdict of not guilty on the ground of a variance between the indictment or information and the proof, or on the ground of any defect in such indictment or information, shall bar another prosecution for the same offense. Whenever a defendant shall be acquitted or convicted upon an indictment or information charging a crime consisting of different degrees, he or she cannot be proceeded against or tried for the same crime in another degree, nor for an attempt to commit such crime, or any degree thereof.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1043; 1909 c 249 s 64; Code 1881 s 769; RRS s 2316.]

Notes:

Offense embraces lower degree and included offenses: RCW 10.43.020.
Ownership of property—Proof of: RCW 10.58.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: State v. Ahluwalia, 22 P.3d 1254 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ahluwalia, 22 P.3d 1254 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 33× “*529 QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented in this case is whether the double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Washington constitutions and RCW 10.43.050 prohibit retrial of Petitioner for murder in the second degree after a mistrial was declared when the jury…”
State v. Anderson, 638 P.2d 1205 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 4× “See RCW 10.43.050 which provides as follows: No order of dismissal or directed verdict of not guilty on the ground of a variance between the indictment or information and the proof, or on the ground of any defect in such indictment or information, shall bar another prosecution…”
State v. Linton, 132 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “To ensure this process works, and to ensure that a person is not tried twice for the same criminal act, the legislature has legislated: Whenever a defendant shall be acquitted or convicted upon an indictment or information charging a crime consisting of different degrees, he…”
State v. Ervin, 147 P.3d 567 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “[5] Ervin does not contend that the jury was dismissed without his consent before reaching a verdict or that the discharge of the jury was not in the interest of justice.”
State v. Russell, 657 P.2d 338 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “020 and RCW 10.43.050 3 preclude amending an information after an acquittal.”
State v. Womac, 160 Wash. 2d 643 (Wash. 2007). “050 also affords defendants protections against double jeopardy, providing in part: Whenever a defendant shall be acquitted or convicted upon an indictment or information charging a crime consisting of different degrees, he cannot be proceeded against or tried for the same crime…”
State v. Womac, 160 P.3d 40 (Wash. 2007). “050 also affords defendants protections against double jeopardy, providing in part: Whenever a defendant shall be acquitted or convicted upon an indictment or information charging a crime consisting of different degrees, he cannot be proceeded against or tried for the same crime…”
State v. Ervin, 147 P.3d 567 (Wash. 2006). “3d 1254 (2001), that RCW 10.43.050 merely codifies the double jeopardy provisions and does not provide for a separate statutory analysis.”
State v. Netling, 731 P.2d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “1, § 9, and a statute, RCW 10.43.050, provide more protection and should bar the prosecutions of the delivery charges.”
State v. Murawski, 142 Wash. App. 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “020 and RCW 10.43.050 are essentially statutory restatements of double jeopardy prohibitions.”
State v. Ahluwalia, 22 P.3d 1254 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 33× “QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented in this case is whether the double jeopardy provisions of the United States and Washington constitutions and RCW 10.43.050 prohibit retrial of Petitioner for murder in the second degree after a mistrial was declared when the jury…”
State v. Padilla, 928 P.2d 1141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The parties differ solely as to the applicability of RCW 10.43.050: Whenever a defendant shall be acquitted or convicted upon *526 an indictment or information charging a crime consisting of different degrees, he cannot be proceeded against or tried for the same crime in another…”
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.