Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.52.090 (2026)

Incriminating testimony not to be used

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In every case where it is provided in *this act that a witness shall not be excused from giving testimony tending to criminate himself or herself, no person shall be excused from testifying or producing any papers or documents on the ground that his or her testimony may tend to criminate or subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture; but he or she shall not be prosecuted or subjected to a penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any action, matter or thing concerning which he or she shall so testify, except for perjury or offering false evidence committed in such testimony.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1049; 1909 c 249 s 39; RRS s 2291.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Ordering immunity from prosecution—Incriminating testimony not to be used—CrR 6.14.
*Reviser's note: For meaning of "this act," see note following RCW 9.01.120.
Bribery or corrupt solicitation: State Constitution Art. 2 s 30.
Rights of accused persons: State Constitution Art. 1 ss 9, 22 (Amendment 10).
Witness not excused from giving testimony tending to incriminate himself in crimes concerning bribery: RCW 9.18.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: State v. Carroll, 515 P.2d 1299 (Wash. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carroll, 515 P.2d 1299 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 34× “080 and RCW 10.52.090, they were respectively afforded statutory immunity from prosecution as a result of their appearance and testimony before the grand jury concerning the offenses charged.”
State v. Smith, 530 P.2d 354 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 7× “Subsequently defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that: Prosecution of this defendant for bribery is specially prohibited by Washington Laws 1909 Chapter 249, Section 39 (RCW 10.52.090) and is violative of the defendant’s rights under said statute…”
State v. Brelvis Consulting LLC, 436 P.3d 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “090 ¶36 Brelvis argues that the superior court erred by ordering it to comply with the CID because, without a grant of immunity, compliance with the CID would violate RCW 10.52.090. We disagree. *224 ¶37 First, as discussed above, Brelvis has not validly asserted any privilege…”
State v. Johnson, 462 P.2d 933 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “That the prosecuting attorney could not bind the state to his promise of immunity under RCW 10.52.090 is clear, for that statute although providing that a “witness shall not be excused from giving testimony tending to criminate himself” and may not be prosecuted “for or on…”
State v. Sponburgh, 525 P.2d 238 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “030; (2) the grand jury lacked jurisdiction over appellants; (3) appellants were accorded immunity under RCW 10.52.090; and (4) the indictment was unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Solomon, 487 P.2d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “See RCW 10.52.090; RCW 9.02.040; RCW 9.05.050; RCW 9.”
State v. Runions, 665 P.2d 1358 (Wash. 1983). “§ 6002, provides that no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury .”
State v. Morgison, 486 P.2d 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “080 and RCW 10.52.090, which relate to immunity from prosecution of parties to bribery who testify.”
In Re Dependency Of : A.m-s., Dob: 12/17/08, Sergio Michel-garcia, Pet v. State Of Wa, Resp, 454 P.3d 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Since 1854, the Washington legislature has given trial courts the authority to compel witnesses to testify in criminal proceedings.”
Brelvis Consulting, Llc v. State Of Washington, 430 P.3d 685 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “First, as discussed above, Brelvis has not validly asserted any privilege protecting it from the CID.”
State v. Harville, 518 P.2d 730 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 5× “080 and RCW 10.52.090 is self-executing when the party is subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury and that it is not necessary that the witness invoke his privilege against self-incrimination before such immunity is granted.”
State v. Morton, 544 P.2d 50 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “080 and RCW 10.52.090. RCW 9.18.080 provides as follows: Offender a competent witness.”
Show all 13 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.