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

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.100 (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) Except for a person who is not qualified for jury service under RCW 2.36.070 or who chooses to opt out of jury service under subsection (2) of this section, no person may be excused from jury service by the court except upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, or any reason deemed sufficient by the court for a period of time the court deems necessary.
(2) A person who is 80 years of age or older may request to be excused from jury service if the person attests that the person is unable to serve due to health reasons. An attestation form must be developed by the court and may not include a requirement that a doctor's note be provided. This request must be granted by the court.
(3) At the discretion of the court's designee, after a request by a prospective juror to be excused, a prospective juror excused from juror service for a particular time may be assigned to another jury term within the twelve-month period. If the assignment to another jury term is made at the time a juror is excused from the jury term for which he or she was summoned, a second summons under RCW 2.36.095 need not be issued. This subsection does not apply to people excused from jury service under subsection (2) of this section.
(4) When the jury source list has been fully summoned within a consecutive twelve-month period and additional jurors are needed, jurors who have already served during the consecutive twelve-month period may be summoned again for service. A juror who has previously served may only be excused if he or she served at least one week of juror service within the preceding twelve months. An excuse for prior service shall be granted only upon the written request of the prospective juror, which request shall certify the terms of prior service. Prior jury service may include service in superior court, in a court of limited jurisdiction, in the United States District Court, or on a jury of inquest.
[ 2023 c 205 s 1; 2015 c 7 s 2; 1992 c 93 s 5; 1988 c 188 s 10; 1983 c 181 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 135 s 3; 1911 c 57 s 7; RRS s 100. Prior: 1909 c 73 s 7.]

Notes:

Legislative findings—Severability—Effective date—1988 c 188: See notes following RCW 2.36.010.
Severability—1979 ex.s. c 135: See note following RCW 2.36.080.
PDF

RCW 2.36.100

Excuse from service—Reasons—Assignment to another term—Summons for additional service—Certification of prior service. (Effective January 1, 2027.)

(1) Except for a person who is not qualified for jury service under RCW 2.36.070 or who chooses to opt out of jury service under subsection (2) of this section, no person may be excused from jury service by the court except upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, or any reason deemed sufficient by the court for a period of time the court deems necessary.
(2)(a) A person who is 80 years of age or older may request to be excused from jury service if the person attests that the person is unable to serve due to health reasons. An attestation form must be developed by the court and may not include a requirement that a doctor's note be provided. This request must be granted by the court.
(b) A person who is breastfeeding or expressing breast milk for an infant under 24 months old may request to delay or be excused from jury service if the person attests that the person is unable to serve for this reason. An attestation form must be developed by the court and may not include a requirement that a doctor's note be provided. This request must be granted by the court.
(3) At the discretion of the court's designee, after a request by a prospective juror to be excused, a prospective juror excused from juror service for a particular time may be assigned to another jury term within the twelve-month period. If the assignment to another jury term is made at the time a juror is excused from the jury term for which he or she was summoned, a second summons under RCW 2.36.095 need not be issued. This subsection does not apply to people excused from jury service under subsection (2) of this section.
(4) When the jury source list has been fully summoned within a consecutive twelve-month period and additional jurors are needed, jurors who have already served during the consecutive twelve-month period may be summoned again for service. A juror who has previously served may only be excused if he or she served at least one week of juror service within the preceding twelve months. An excuse for prior service shall be granted only upon the written request of the prospective juror, which request shall certify the terms of prior service. Prior jury service may include service in superior court, in a court of limited jurisdiction, in the United States District Court, or on a jury of inquest.
[ 2025 c 379 s 7; 2023 c 205 s 1; 2015 c 7 s 2; 1992 c 93 s 5; 1988 c 188 s 10; 1983 c 181 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 135 s 3; 1911 c 57 s 7; RRS s 100. Prior: 1909 c 73 s 7.]

Notes:

Effective date—2025 c 379: See note following RCW 49.92.020.
Legislative findings—Severability—Effective date—1988 c 188: See notes following RCW 2.36.010.
Severability—1979 ex.s. c 135: See note following RCW 2.36.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: State v. Wilson, 298 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wilson, 298 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “¶21 The criminal rules of procedure, RCW 2.36.100(1), and case law clearly demonstrate that (1) “jury selection” and “voir dire” are separate but related concepts; and (2) the public trial right historically has not attached to certain statutory juror excusáis, such as hardships…”
State v. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d 874 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “100(1), a person may be excused from jury service on a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, prior jury service at least twice in the preceding twelve months, “or any reason deemed sufficient by the court for a period of time the court deems…”
State v. Rice, 844 P.2d 416 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 10× “First, he argues that the judge could not delegate the task of excusing jurors from serving under RCW 2.36.100 to the clerk of the court. Second, he argues that prospective jurors were excluded from the venire for reasons unrelated to those listed in RCW 2.”
State v. Tingdale, 817 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 8× “, former RCW 2.36.100, .110; RCW 4.44.230-.250. Although the majority seems to suggest otherwise, there is no requirement the actual jury must be randomly selected.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yates, 296 P.3d 872 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “” RCW 2.36.100(1). The policies at issue here were adopted by the Pierce County Superior Court Executive Committee and were, therefore, reasons “deemed sufficient by the court.”
State v. Irby, 246 P.3d 796 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 5× “100(1), a person may be excused from jury service on a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, prior jury service at least twice in the preceding twelve months, "or any reason deemed sufficient by the court for a period of time the court deems…”
State v. Slert, 282 P.3d 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Similarly, RCW 2.36.100(1) and (3) give the trial court authority to excuse potential jurors for “undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, prior jury service at least twice in the preceding twelve months,” or for “ ‘any reason deemed sufficient by the court.”
State v. Langford, 837 P.2d 1037 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Cramer testified the panel was randomly selected by computer. Of the 601 persons sent summonses for jury duty in July, 82 did not respond.”
State v. Roberts, 14 P.3d 713 (Wash. 2000). “Jurors Endicott, Walker, Schau, and Stepper were properly dismissed.”
State v. Rivers, 533 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2023). “See RCW 2.36.100(1). Otherwise, summoned jurors generally 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.”
State v. Russell, 357 P.3d 38 (Wash. 2015). “See GR 28(a) (setting forth “procedures for postponing and excusing jury service under RCW 2.36.100 and 2.36.110 and for disqualifying potential jurors under RCW 2.”
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Donald H. Turpin, App., 360 P.3d 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 22 Because the trial court had broad discretion to excuse prospective jurors upon a showing of undue hardship or any reason deemed sufficient by the court pursuant to RCW 2.36.100(1), Wilson failed to satisfy the experience prong of the experience and logic test.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.100(1) — 22 cases
State v. Wilson, 298 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶21 The criminal rules of procedure, RCW 2.36.100(1), and case law clearly demonstrate that (1) “jury selection” and “voir dire” are separate but related concepts; and (2) the public trial right historically has not attached to certain statutory juror excusáis, such as hardships…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yates, 296 P.3d 872 (Wash. 2013). “” RCW 2.36.100(1). The policies at issue here were adopted by the Pierce County Superior Court Executive Committee and were, therefore, reasons “deemed sufficient by the court.”
State v. Slert, 282 P.3d 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Similarly, RCW 2.36.100(1) and (3) give the trial court authority to excuse potential jurors for “undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, prior jury service at least twice in the preceding twelve months,” or for “ ‘any reason deemed sufficient by the court.”
State v. Irby, 170 Wash. 2d 874 (Wash. 2011). “100(1), a person may be excused from jury service on a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, prior jury service at least twice in the preceding twelve months, “or any reason deemed sufficient by the court for a period of time the court deems…”
State v. Roberts, 14 P.3d 713 (Wash. 2000). “Jurors Endicott, Walker, Schau, and Stepper were properly dismissed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.100(l) — 1 case
State v. Wilson, 298 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶21 The criminal rules of procedure, RCW 2.36.100(1), and case law clearly demonstrate that (1) “jury selection” and “voir dire” are separate but related concepts; and (2) the public trial right historically has not attached to certain statutory juror excusáis, such as hardships…”
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.