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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.46.085 (2026)

Continuances not permitted in certain cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When a defendant is charged with a crime which constitutes a violation of RCW 9A.64.020 or chapter 9.68, 9.68A, or 9A.44 RCW, and the alleged victim of the crime is a person under the age of eighteen years, neither the defendant nor the prosecuting attorney may agree to extend the originally scheduled trial date unless the court within its discretion finds that there are substantial and compelling reasons for a continuance of the trial date and that the benefit of the postponement outweighs the detriment to the victim. The court may consider the testimony of lay witnesses and of expert witnesses, if available, regarding the impact of the continuance on the victim.
[ 1989 c 332 s 7.]

Notes:

Finding—1989 c 332: "The legislature finds that treatment of the emotional problems of child sexual abuse victims may be impaired by lengthy delay in trial of the accused and the resulting delay in testimony of the child victim. The trauma of the abusive incident is likely to be exacerbated by requiring testimony from a victim who has substantially completed therapy and is forced to relive the incident. The legislature finds that it is necessary to prevent, to the extent reasonably possible, lengthy and unnecessary delays in trial of a person charged with abuse of a minor." [ 1989 c 332 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: State Of Washington v. Raul Castillo Lopez, 370 P.3d 589 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington v. Raul Castillo Lopez, 370 P.3d 589 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “In ruling on this motion, the trial court considered RCW 10.46.085. 6 The charges against Castillo-Lopez fell within the scope of crimes identified in the statute.”
State v. Downing, 151 Wash. 2d 265 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 10.46.085. 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). “See RCW 10.46.085. 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. Chenoweth, 115 Wash. App. 726 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.46.085. That statute states: When a defendant is charged with a crime which constitutes a violation of RCW 9A.”
State v. Chenoweth, 63 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.46.085. That statute states: When a defendant is charged with a crime which constitutes a violation of RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington, Resp V. Michael Gary Erickson, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See RCW 10.46.085. This court reviews a trial court decision on whether to grant a continuance for abuse of that discretion.”
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.