Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Complaints referred to the juvenile court alleging the commission of an offense shall be referred directly to the prosecutor. The prosecutor, upon receipt of a complaint, shall screen the complaint to determine whether:
(a) The alleged facts bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court; and
(b) On a basis of available evidence there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile did commit the offense.
(2) If the identical alleged acts constitute an offense under both the law of this state and an ordinance of any city or county of this state, state law shall govern the prosecutor's screening and charging decision for both filed and diverted cases.
(3) If the requirements of subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section are met, the prosecutor shall either file an information in juvenile court or divert the case, as set forth in subsections (5), (6), and (8) of this section. If the prosecutor finds that the requirements of subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section are not met, the prosecutor shall maintain a record, for one year, of such decision and the reasons therefor. In lieu of filing an information or diverting an offense a prosecutor may file a motion to modify community supervision where such offense constitutes a violation of community supervision.
(4) An information shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney and conform to chapter 10.37 RCW.
(5) The prosecutor shall file an information with the juvenile court if (a) an alleged offender is accused of an offense that is defined as a sex offense or violent offense under RCW 9.94A.030, other than assault in the second degree or robbery in the second degree; or (b) an alleged offender has been referred by a diversion unit for prosecution or desires prosecution instead of diversion.
(6) Where a case is legally sufficient the prosecutor shall divert the case if the alleged offense is a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor or violation and the alleged offense is the offender's first offense or violation. If the alleged offender is charged with a related offense that may be filed under subsections (5) and (8) of this section, a case under this subsection may also be filed.
(7) Where a case is legally sufficient to charge an alleged offender with:
(a) Prostitution loitering and the alleged offense is the offender's first prostitution loitering offense, the prosecutor shall divert the case;
(b) Voyeurism in the second degree, the offender is under seventeen years of age, and the alleged offense is the offender's first voyeurism in the second degree offense, the prosecutor shall divert the case, unless the offender has received two diversions for any offense in the previous two years;
(c) Minor selling depictions of himself or herself engaged in sexually explicit conduct under RCW 9.68A.053(5) and the alleged offense is the offender's first violation of RCW 9.68A.053(5), the prosecutor shall divert the case; or
(d) A distribution, transfer, dissemination, or exchange of sexually explicit images of other minors thirteen years of age or older offense as provided in RCW 9.68A.053(1) and the alleged offense is the offender's first violation of RCW 9.68A.053(1), the prosecutor shall divert the case.
(8) Where a case is legally sufficient and falls into neither subsection (5) nor (6) of this section, it may be filed or diverted. In deciding whether to file or divert an offense under this section the prosecutor may be guided by the length, seriousness, and recency of the alleged offender's criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged offense.
(9) Whenever a juvenile is placed in custody or, where not placed in custody, referred to a diversion interview, the parent or legal guardian of the juvenile shall be notified as soon as possible concerning the allegation made against the juvenile and the current status of the juvenile. Where a case involves victims of crimes against persons or victims whose property has not been recovered at the time a juvenile is referred to a diversion unit, the victim shall be notified of the referral and informed how to contact the unit.
(10) The responsibilities of the prosecutor under subsections (1) through (9) of this section may be performed by a juvenile court probation counselor for any complaint referred to the court alleging the commission of an offense which would not be a felony if committed by an adult, if the prosecutor has given sufficient written notice to the juvenile court that the prosecutor will not review such complaints.
(11) The prosecutor, juvenile court probation counselor, or diversion unit may, in exercising their authority under this section or RCW 13.40.080, refer juveniles to community-based programs, restorative justice programs, mediation, or victim offender reconciliation programs. Such mediation or victim offender reconciliation programs shall be voluntary for victims.
(12) Prosecutors and juvenile courts are encouraged to engage with and partner with community-based programs to expand, improve, and increase options to divert youth from formal processing in juvenile court. Nothing in this chapter should be read to limit partnership with community-based programs to create diversion opportunities for juveniles.
[ 2020 c 331 s 5; 2019 c 128 s 8; 2018 c 82 s 1; 2017 c 292 s 2; 2013 c 179 s 3; 2010 c 289 s 7; 2009 c 252 s 3; 2003 c 53 s 98; 2001 c 175 s 2; 1997 c 338 s 17; 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 543; 1992 c 205 s 107; 1989 c 407 s 9; 1983 c 191 s 18; 1981 c 299 s 7; 1979 c 155 s 60; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 61.]

Notes:

Effective date—2020 c 331 ss 4, 5, and 6: See note following RCW 7.68.380.
Finding—2020 c 331: See note following RCW 7.68.380.
Short title—2019 c 128: See note following RCW 13.40.660.
Finding—2013 c 179: See note following RCW 13.40.042.
Findings—2009 c 252: See note following RCW 13.40.213.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
Application—1994 sp.s. c 7 ss 540-545: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Part headings not law—Severability—1992 c 205: See notes following RCW 13.40.010.
Effective date—Severability—1979 c 155: See notes following RCW 13.04.011.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Murrin, 934 P.2d 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Murrin, 934 P.2d 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “4 I The statute at issue, RCW 13.40.070, provides in pertinent part: (1) Complaints referred to the juvenile court alleging the commission of an offense shall be referred directly to the prosecutor.”
State v. McDowell, 685 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 6× “080(6) (e) would significantly limit the charging discretion already granted in RCW 13.40.070. We conclude that RCW 13.40.”
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “110) or who is not diverted from prosecution (RCW 13.40.070, .080) is subject to the juvenile court procedures.”
State v. Tinh Quoc Tran, 117 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “*131 Since the elements of No Valid Operator’s License were not laid out in the affidavit charging Respondent with a probation violation, the affidavit did not charge Respondent with the act of driving without a license and thus RCW 13.40.070 does not apply. CP at 20, Conclusion…”
State v. J.J., 980 P.2d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “contends that the State could not do both without violating RCW 13.40.070(3) which prohibits the State from modifying community supervision and filing a new charge based on the same conduct.”
State v. Cantrell, 758 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “RCW 13.40.070(3), (4), (5); JuCR 7.1. While the rule refers to unreasonable delay in referring the case to the court, the rule only defines unreasonable delay in referral from the police to the prosecutor.”
State v. Whisenhunt, 980 P.2d 232 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “*21 RCW 13.40.070 provides in part: (1) Complaints referred to the juvenile court alleging the commission of an offense shall be referred directly to the prosecutor.”
State v. Tran, 69 P.3d 884 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “Since the elements of No Valid Operator's License were not laid out in the affidavit charging Respondent with a probation violation, the affidavit did not charge Respondent with the act of driving without a license and thus RCW 13.40.070 does not apply. CP at 20, Conclusion of…”
State v. JH, 978 P.2d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “[46] See RCW 13.40.070, .080. [47] See e.g., RCW 9.”
State v. SH, 8 P.3d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “" RCW 13.40.070(6). "A diversion agreement shall be a contract between a juvenile accused of an offense and a diversionary unit whereby the juvenile agrees to fulfill certain conditions in lieu of prosecution.”
State v. S.H., 102 Wash. App. 468 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” RCW 13.40.070(6). “A diversion agreement shall be a contract between a juvenile accused of an offense and a diversionary unit whereby the juvenile agrees to fulfill certain conditions in lieu of prosecution.”
State v. Chatham, 624 P.2d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Since the juvenile in this case was a first offender not charged with a felony, he had a right to have his case referred to a diversionary unit, RCW 13.40.070(5); and the prosecuting attorney's office, in turn, had the duty to so refer it, RCW 13.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(1) — 2 cases
State v. McDowell, 685 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1984). “080(6) (e) would significantly limit the charging discretion already granted in RCW 13.40.070. We conclude that RCW 13.40.”
State of Washington v. Javier Garza (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Foley, 834 P.2d 1108 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Foley, 834 P.2d 1108 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(3) — 13 cases
State v. Murrin, 934 P.2d 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “4 I The statute at issue, RCW 13.40.070, provides in pertinent part: (1) Complaints referred to the juvenile court alleging the commission of an offense shall be referred directly to the prosecutor.”
State v. Tinh Quoc Tran, 117 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “*131 Since the elements of No Valid Operator’s License were not laid out in the affidavit charging Respondent with a probation violation, the affidavit did not charge Respondent with the act of driving without a license and thus RCW 13.40.070 does not apply. CP at 20, Conclusion…”
State v. J.J., 980 P.2d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “contends that the State could not do both without violating RCW 13.40.070(3) which prohibits the State from modifying community supervision and filing a new charge based on the same conduct.”
State v. Cantrell, 758 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1988). “RCW 13.40.070(3), (4), (5); JuCR 7.1. While the rule refers to unreasonable delay in referring the case to the court, the rule only defines unreasonable delay in referral from the police to the prosecutor.”
State v. McDowell, 685 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1984). “080(6) (e) would significantly limit the charging discretion already granted in RCW 13.40.070. We conclude that RCW 13.40.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(4) — 2 cases
State v. Baker, 738 P.2d 327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).
State of Washington v. Dion Taries Jordan Baker (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(5) — 3 cases
State v. McDowell, 685 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1984). “080(6) (e) would significantly limit the charging discretion already granted in RCW 13.40.070. We conclude that RCW 13.40.”
State v. Chatham, 624 P.2d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Since the juvenile in this case was a first offender not charged with a felony, he had a right to have his case referred to a diversionary unit, RCW 13.40.070(5); and the prosecuting attorney's office, in turn, had the duty to so refer it, RCW 13.”
State v. TRACY M., 720 P.2d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(5)(b) — 1 case
State v. TRACY M., 720 P.2d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(6) — 6 cases
State v. SH, 8 P.3d 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “" RCW 13.40.070(6). "A diversion agreement shall be a contract between a juvenile accused of an offense and a diversionary unit whereby the juvenile agrees to fulfill certain conditions in lieu of prosecution.”
State v. S.H., 102 Wash. App. 468 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” RCW 13.40.070(6). “A diversion agreement shall be a contract between a juvenile accused of an offense and a diversionary unit whereby the juvenile agrees to fulfill certain conditions in lieu of prosecution.”
State v. Chatham, 624 P.2d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Since the juvenile in this case was a first offender not charged with a felony, he had a right to have his case referred to a diversionary unit, RCW 13.40.070(5); and the prosecuting attorney's office, in turn, had the duty to so refer it, RCW 13.”
State v. WS, 700 P.2d 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. S.H., 95 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(7) — 1 case
State v. TRACY M., 720 P.2d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.070(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. TRACY M., 720 P.2d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
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.