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

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140 (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) A juvenile shall be advised of the juvenile's rights when appearing before the court.
(2) A juvenile and the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian shall be advised by the court or its representative that the juvenile has a right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. Unless waived, counsel shall be provided to a juvenile who is financially unable to obtain counsel without causing substantial hardship to himself or herself or the juvenile's family, in any proceeding where the juvenile may be subject to transfer for criminal prosecution, or in any proceeding where the juvenile may be in danger of confinement. The ability to pay part of the cost of counsel does not preclude assignment. In no case may a juvenile be deprived of counsel because of a parent, guardian, or custodian refusing to pay therefor. The juvenile shall be fully advised of the juvenile's right to an attorney and of the relevant services an attorney can provide.
(3) The right to counsel includes the right to the appointment of experts necessary, and the experts shall be required pursuant to the procedures and requirements established by the supreme court.
(4) Upon application of a party, the clerk of the court shall issue, and the court on its own motion may issue, subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of records, documents, or other tangible objects at any hearing, or such subpoenas may be issued by an attorney of record.
(5) All proceedings shall be transcribed verbatim by means which will provide an accurate record.
(6) The general public and press shall be permitted to attend any hearing unless the court, for good cause, orders a particular hearing to be closed. The presumption shall be that all such hearings will be open.
(7) In all adjudicatory proceedings before the court, all parties shall have the right to adequate notice, discovery as provided in criminal cases, opportunity to be heard, confrontation of witnesses except in such cases as this chapter expressly permits the use of hearsay testimony, findings based solely upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and an unbiased fact finder.
(8) A juvenile shall be accorded the same privilege against self-incrimination as an adult and the protections provided in RCW 13.40.740. An extrajudicial statement which would be constitutionally inadmissible in a criminal proceeding may not be received in evidence at an adjudicatory hearing over objection. Evidence illegally seized or obtained, including evidence obtained in violation of RCW 13.40.740, may not be received in evidence over objection at an adjudicatory hearing to prove the allegations against the juvenile if the evidence would be inadmissible in an adult criminal proceeding. An extrajudicial admission or confession made by the juvenile out of court is insufficient to support a finding that the juvenile committed the acts alleged in the information unless evidence of a corpus delicti is first independently established in the same manner as required in an adult criminal proceeding.
(9) Statements, admissions, or confessions made by a juvenile in the course of a mental health or chemical dependency screening or assessment, whether or not the screening or assessment was ordered by the court, shall not be admissible into evidence against the juvenile on the issue of guilt in any juvenile offense matter or adult criminal proceeding, unless the juvenile has placed the juvenile's mental health at issue. The statement is admissible for any other purpose or proceeding allowed by law. This prohibition does not apply to statements, admissions, or confessions made to law enforcement, and may not be used to argue for derivative suppression of other evidence lawfully obtained as a result of an otherwise inadmissible statement, admission, or confession.
(10) Waiver of any right which a juvenile has under this chapter must be an express waiver intelligently made by the juvenile after the juvenile has been fully informed of the right being waived, including having access to an attorney for consultation if required under RCW 13.40.740.
(11) Whenever this chapter refers to waiver or objection by a juvenile, the word juvenile shall be construed to refer to a juvenile who is at least 12 years of age. If a juvenile is under 12 years of age, the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian shall give any waiver or offer any objection contemplated by this chapter.
[ 2021 c 328 s 2; 2014 c 110 s 2; 1981 c 299 s 11; 1979 c 155 s 66; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 68.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 328: See note following RCW 13.40.740.
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 61 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: State v. Blair, 783 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Blair, 783 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “When reading RCW 13.40.140 as a whole, it becomes clear that the "express waiver" language contained in subsection (9) does not apply to extrajudicial statements.”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, juvenile court hearings concerning offenses are made presumptively public (RCW 13.40.140(6)). No longer is the punishment geared to fit the needs of the child, rather it is related to the seriousness of the offense.”
State v. Saenz, 283 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 5× “” RCW 13.40.140(9). Second, after a decline hearing but before transferring a case to adult court, juvenile courts must enter findings in the record, including a finding that transfer to adult court is in the best interest of the juvenile or the public.”
State v. Linares, 880 P.2d 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “2 In both cases, the courts ruled that the statements each boy had given to the police would be admissible at their capacity hearings but not at their adjudicatory hearings because the statements were taken in violation of RCW 13.40.140. 3 In both cases, the courts found that…”
State v. Lawley, 591 P.2d 772 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 4× “RCW 13.40.140. While the act does set certain determinate disposition standards, it expressly reserves to the juvenile court judge the right to alter an otherwise mandated disposition if the court finds that such disposition would impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile.”
Dutil v. State, 606 P.2d 269 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 5× “" RCW 13.40.140(1) and (2). Subdivision (8) of this section also implicitly recognizes the juvenile's right to counsel at interrogations.”
State v. Rhodes, 600 P.2d 1264 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 3× “RCW 13.40.140(2) provides that "The youth shall be fully advised of his or her right to an attorney and of the relevant services an attorney can provide.”
State v. Mounts, 122 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “050(5), (6) (if a juvenile case is properly before the court and probable cause exists but further detention is not necessary, the juvenile shall be released upon certain conditions); RCW 13.40.140(2) (juvenile has right to counsel at public expense "at all critical stages of…”
State v. Weber, 159 Wash. 2d 252 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 13.40.140. 4 ¶20 Despite the evidence of the reliability of and the historical reliance on juvenile adjudications, Weber maintains that juvenile adjudications do not fall under the Apprendi exception because they are not convictions.”
State v. Weber, 149 P.3d 646 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 13.40.140. [4] ¶ 20 Despite the evidence of the reliability of and the historical reliance on juvenile adjudications, Weber maintains that juvenile adjudications do not fall under the Apprendi exception because they are not convictions.”
State v. S.J.C., 352 P.3d 749 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “We are not presented with the question of whether juvenile court proceedings should be presumptively open under article I, section 10 — they already are presumptively open under RCW 13.40.140(6). These open proceedings serve “to ensure a fair trial, to remind the prosecutor and…”
State v. Escoto, 735 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 4× “RCW 13.40.140(8) provides in part: (8) A juvenile shall be accorded the same privilege against self-incrimination as an adult.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(1) — 7 cases
State v. Golden, 112 Wash. App. 68 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Golden, 47 P.3d 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Dutil v. State, 606 P.2d 269 (Wash. 1980). “" RCW 13.40.140(1) and (2). Subdivision (8) of this section also implicitly recognizes the juvenile's right to counsel at interrogations.”
State v. Blair, 783 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “When reading RCW 13.40.140 as a whole, it becomes clear that the "express waiver" language contained in subsection (9) does not apply to extrajudicial statements.”
State v. M.S., 484 P.3d 1231 (Wash. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(10) — 11 cases
State v. Linares, 880 P.2d 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “2 In both cases, the courts ruled that the statements each boy had given to the police would be admissible at their capacity hearings but not at their adjudicatory hearings because the statements were taken in violation of RCW 13.40.140. 3 In both cases, the courts found that…”
Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. ES, 199 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. E.S., 148 Wash. App. 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
In re Joseph H., 367 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2015).
Vancouver Sch. Dist. No. 37 v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 92, 906 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(11) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. I.h. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. M.b.-m. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V. L.d.e.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(2) — 7 cases
State v. Rhodes, 600 P.2d 1264 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 13.40.140(2) provides that "The youth shall be fully advised of his or her right to an attorney and of the relevant services an attorney can provide.”
Dutil v. State, 606 P.2d 269 (Wash. 1980). “" RCW 13.40.140(1) and (2). Subdivision (8) of this section also implicitly recognizes the juvenile's right to counsel at interrogations.”
State v. Mounts, 122 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “050(5), (6) (if a juvenile case is properly before the court and probable cause exists but further detention is not necessary, the juvenile shall be released upon certain conditions); RCW 13.40.140(2) (juvenile has right to counsel at public expense "at all critical stages of…”
State v. Mounts, 130 Wash. App. 219 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State Of Washington v. D.j.m., L.d.m., & L.k.m. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(3) — 1 case
State v. Mounts, 122 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “050(5), (6) (if a juvenile case is properly before the court and probable cause exists but further detention is not necessary, the juvenile shall be released upon certain conditions); RCW 13.40.140(2) (juvenile has right to counsel at public expense "at all critical stages of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(5) — 4 cases
State v. Golden, 112 Wash. App. 68 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Golden, 47 P.3d 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Knippling, 168 P.3d 426 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Knippling, 141 Wash. App. 50 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(6) — 7 cases
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “Furthermore, juvenile court hearings concerning offenses are made presumptively public (RCW 13.40.140(6)). No longer is the punishment geared to fit the needs of the child, rather it is related to the seriousness of the offense.”
State v. S.J.C., 352 P.3d 749 (Wash. 2015). “We are not presented with the question of whether juvenile court proceedings should be presumptively open under article I, section 10 — they already are presumptively open under RCW 13.40.140(6). These open proceedings serve “to ensure a fair trial, to remind the prosecutor and…”
State v. Lawley, 591 P.2d 772 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 13.40.140. While the act does set certain determinate disposition standards, it expressly reserves to the juvenile court judge the right to alter an otherwise mandated disposition if the court finds that such disposition would impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile.”
State v. Loukaitis, 918 P.2d 535 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Mounts, 122 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “050(5), (6) (if a juvenile case is properly before the court and probable cause exists but further detention is not necessary, the juvenile shall be released upon certain conditions); RCW 13.40.140(2) (juvenile has right to counsel at public expense "at all critical stages of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(7) — 11 cases
State v. Moro, 117 Wash. App. 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Moro, 73 P.3d 1029 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Falling, 747 P.2d 1119 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Diaz-Cardona, 123 Wash. App. 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Gutierrez, 684 P.2d 87 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(8) — 20 cases
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “Furthermore, juvenile court hearings concerning offenses are made presumptively public (RCW 13.40.140(6)). No longer is the punishment geared to fit the needs of the child, rather it is related to the seriousness of the offense.”
State v. Linares, 880 P.2d 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “2 In both cases, the courts ruled that the statements each boy had given to the police would be admissible at their capacity hearings but not at their adjudicatory hearings because the statements were taken in violation of RCW 13.40.140. 3 In both cases, the courts found that…”
State v. Escoto, 735 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1987). “RCW 13.40.140(8) provides in part: (8) A juvenile shall be accorded the same privilege against self-incrimination as an adult.”
State v. D.R., 930 P.2d 350 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Dutil v. State, 606 P.2d 269 (Wash. 1980). “" RCW 13.40.140(1) and (2). Subdivision (8) of this section also implicitly recognizes the juvenile's right to counsel at interrogations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.140(9) — 19 cases
State v. Saenz, 283 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2012). “” RCW 13.40.140(9). Second, after a decline hearing but before transferring a case to adult court, juvenile courts must enter findings in the record, including a finding that transfer to adult court is in the best interest of the juvenile or the public.”
State v. Blair, 783 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “When reading RCW 13.40.140 as a whole, it becomes clear that the "express waiver" language contained in subsection (9) does not apply to extrajudicial statements.”
Dutil v. State, 606 P.2d 269 (Wash. 1980). “" RCW 13.40.140(1) and (2). Subdivision (8) of this section also implicitly recognizes the juvenile's right to counsel at interrogations.”
State v. Rhodes, 600 P.2d 1264 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 13.40.140(2) provides that "The youth shall be fully advised of his or her right to an attorney and of the relevant services an attorney can provide.”
State v. Linares, 880 P.2d 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “2 In both cases, the courts ruled that the statements each boy had given to the police would be admissible at their capacity hearings but not at their adjudicatory hearings because the statements were taken in violation of RCW 13.40.140. 3 In both cases, the courts found that…”
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.