Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.52.060 (2026)
Confrontation of witnesses
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person accused of crime shall have the right to meet the witnesses produced against him or her face to face: PROVIDED, That whenever any witness whose deposition shall have been taken pursuant to law by a magistrate, in the presence of the defendant and his or her counsel, shall be absent, and cannot be found when required to testify upon any trial or hearing, so much of such deposition as the court shall deem admissible and competent shall be admitted and read as evidence in such case.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1048; 1909 c 249 s 54; RRS s 2306. Prior: Code 1881 s 765; 1873 p 180 s 2; 1869 p 198 s 2; 1859 p 104 s 2.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: Caption for 1909 c 249 s 54 reads as follows: "SEC. 54. WITNESSES."
Rights of accused persons: State Constitution Art. 1 s 22 (Amendment 10).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: State v. Foster, 957 P.2d 712 (Wash. 1998).
State v. Foster, 957 P.2d 712 (Wash. 1998). “at 739 (citing RCW 10.52.060). Yet RCW 10.52.060 does not define what the term requires, and its mere repetition of the words "face-to-face" adds nothing to their interpretation.”
State v. Foster, 135 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 1998). “The law continues to provide that right under RCW 10.52.060. The amendment provided-that depositions taken at an earlier time could be introduced at trial.”
State v. Hewett, 545 P.2d 1201 (Wash. 1976). “Initially, the appellants contend that RCW 10.52.060 1 prohibits the use of video tape recordings in a criminal trial.”
State v. Kreck, 542 P.2d 782 (Wash. 1975). “1, § 22, and RCW 10.52.060. We turn to an examination of defendant’s remaining assignments of error.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Sauve, 692 P.2d 818 (Wash. 1985). “10), RCW 10.52.060 and the sixth amendment to the federal constitution, an accused has the right to confront his accuser at trial.”
State v. Solomon, 487 P.2d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “1, § 22 (amendment 10), to confront and cross-examine his accusing witness; second, that the preliminary hearing, by its nature, did not afford a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine; and third, that the testimony admitted does not fall within the RCW 10.52.060 conditions…”
State v. Walker, 536 P.2d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “RCW 10.52.060. The case of State v. Greer, 11 Wash.”
State v. Carr, 537 P.2d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “” RCW 10.52.060. Carr’s counsel sought to discredit the victim by interrogating him concerning his addiction to heroin.”
State v. Kreck, 532 P.2d 285 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “” RCW 10.52.060: “Every person accused of crime shall have the right to meet the witnesses produced against him face to face: Provided, That whenever any witness whose deposition shall have been taken pursuant to law by a magistrate, in the presence of the defendant and his…”
State v. Williams, 513 P.2d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “These circumstances present two basic questions: Was the witness’ testimony at the first trial properly admitted in the second trial, and was the trial court correct in striking the testimony which the witness gave at the second trial.”
State v. White Eagle, 527 P.2d 1390 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). “Also, it was not his returning to Oklahoma which is claimed to be flight, but his failure to return to testify at trial.”
Richard Severson v. State Of Washington Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “I, § 22; RCW 10.52.060. Thus, the claim fails. 9. Legal Standard Severson argues that the appropriate standard for findings of neglect should be clear and convincing evidence, not a preponderance of the evidence, because the risk of loss of liberty is great.”
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.