Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.050 (2026)

Juries in courts of limited jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In courts of limited jurisdiction, juries shall be selected and impaneled in the same manner as in the superior courts, except that a court of limited jurisdiction shall use the master jury list developed by the superior court to select a jury panel. Jurors for the jury panel may be selected at random from the population of the area served by the court.
[ 1988 c 188 s 3; 1980 c 162 s 6; 1972 ex.s. c 57 s 1; 1891 c 48 s 4; RRS s 92.]

Notes:

Legislative findings—Severability—Effective date—1988 c 188: See notes following RCW 2.36.010.
Severability—1980 c 162: See note following RCW 3.02.010.
Courts of limited jurisdiction: Chapter 3.02 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 257 P.3d 648 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 257 P.3d 648 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 15× “The Court of Appeals reversed Barnhart’s conviction because the impaneling of the King County jurors, although valid under RCW 2.36.050, violated article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 196 P.3d 681 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 22× “¶ 1 The defendant maintains that pursuant to RCW 2.36.050 jury pools for trials in Tukwila Municipal Court must be composed of persons residing within the city limits of Tukwila.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 165 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 23× “¶1 — The defendant maintains that pursuant to RCW 2.36.050 jury pools for trials in Tukwila Municipal Court must be composed of persons residing within the city limits of Tukwila.”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 13× “RCW 2.36.050 provides that: In courts of limited jurisdiction, juries shall be selected and impaneled in the same manner as in the superior courts, except that a court of limited jurisdiction shall use the master jury list developed by the superior court to select a jury panel.”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 13× “RCW 2.36.050 provides that: In courts of limited jurisdiction, juries shall be selected and impaneled in the same manner as in the superior courts, except that a court of limited jurisdiction shall use the master jury list developed by the superior court to select a jury panel.”
City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 234 P.3d 264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Although the superior court recognized Barnhart's article I, section 22 jury-trial right and that the city had alleged that the charged offense was committed in Snohomish County, it concluded that the trial court did not err because it had complied with RCW 2.36.050. [1] That…”
City of Bothell v. Barnhart, 156 Wash. App. 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Although the superior court recognized Barnhart’s article I, section 22 jury-trial right and that the city had alleged that the charged offense was committed in Snohomish County, it concluded that the trial court did not err because it had complied with RCW 2.36.050. 1 That…”
Carrick v. Locke, 882 P.2d 173 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “" RCW 2.36.050. Hence, district courts may rely on jurors from a much narrower geographic range.”
State v. Tingdale, 817 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “" See also RCW 2.36.050, .063. [4] An exception exists with regard to the landlord.”
State v. Lanciloti, 201 P.3d 323 (Wash. 2009). “at 117, 120 (citing RCW 2.36.050). The defendants argued that under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution, they were entitled to have juries drawn from the whole county, rather than from merely the rough area that elected the district court judge.”
State v. Ramsay, 704 P.2d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The expiration of Ramsay's waiver imposed no "impossible burden" upon the State.”
Raymond Budd & Vickie Budd, V. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 505 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “81918-6-I/6 RCW 2.36.050;3 .063;4 .065;5 .080(1);6 .1307).”
Show all 18 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.