Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.46.080 (2026)

Continuances

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A continuance may be granted in any case on the ground of the absence of evidence on the motion of the defendant supported by affidavit showing the materiality of the evidence expected to be obtained, and that due diligence has been used to procure it; and also the name and place of residence of the witness or witnesses; and the substance of the evidence expected to be obtained, and if the prosecuting attorney admit that such evidence would be given, and that it be considered as actually given on the trial or offered and overruled as improper the continuance shall not be granted.
[Code 1881 s 1077; 1877 p 206 s 7; RRS s 2135.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002). · cites it 2× “§ 99-15-29 (1972); Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 668 (1993); S.”
State v. Edwards, 412 P.2d 747 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 7× “RCW 10.46.080; State vs. Griffith, 52 Wash.”
State v. Downing, 151 Wash. 2d 265 (Wash. 2004). “In the case at bar, Downing moved for a continuance in order to secure expert testimony for the express purpose of reconsidering the trial court’s ruling that L.”
State v. Downing, 87 P.3d 1169 (Wash. 2004). “2d 242 (1974); RCW 10.46.080; CrR 3.3(f). However, trial courts must also compare any detriment to a child victim that might be caused by a continuance with the compelling reasons for continuing the trial.”
State v. Beck, 349 P.2d 387 (Wash. 1960). · cites it 2× “The only statutory ground for a continuance is found in RCW 10.46.080, which has to do with the absence of material evidence, and it has no significance here.”
State v. Williams, 529 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “With respect to defense counsel’s motion for production of the record made at the first trial, the Court of Appeals held that the motion came too late and that a continuance was not in order because defendant made no showing of *855 due diligence pursuant to RCW 10.”
State v. Turner, 555 P.2d 1382 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “3 Here defendant attempted to demonstrate the materiality of the unavailable testimony by the introduction of Dr.”
State v. Olsen, 263 P.2d 824 (Wash. 1953). “RCW 10.46.080]) which governs the granting of continuances in criminal cases.”
State v. Toliver, 494 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “Further, unless there is compliance with RCW 10.46.080, which requires that a written affidavit support a motion for a continuance on the ground of absence of evidence, setting forth the materiality and substance of the evidence, the name and residence of the witness and that…”
State v. Harris, 530 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “Appellant had over a year to prepare for the trial, including two continuances granted on defense motion, and otherwise had ample time to secure all necessary witnesses.”
State v. Kearney, 449 P.2d 400 (Wash. 1969). “RCW 10.46.080; State v. Bates, 52 Wn.2d 207 , 324 P.”
State v. Anderson, 597 P.2d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “2d 500 (1978); RCW 10.46.080. Like *449 wise, there is no mechanical Sixth Amendment test regarding what constitutes a reasonable time to prepare a case; each case must be examined individually to determine whether the defendant has been given sufficient time for effective legal…”
Show all 29 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.