Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170 (2026)

Particular causes of challenge

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Particular causes of challenge are of three kinds:
(1) For such a bias as when the existence of the facts is ascertained, in judgment of law disqualifies the juror, and which is known in this code as implied bias.
(2) For the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging, and which is known in this code as actual bias.
(3) For the existence of a defect in the functions or organs of the body which satisfies the court that the challenged person is incapable of performing the duties of a juror in the particular action without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 203 s 3; Code 1881 s 211; 1877 p 44 s 215; 1869 p 52 s 215; RRS s 329.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: The word "code" appeared in Code 1881 s 211.
Qualification of jurors: RCW 2.36.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 166 cases (57 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 425 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 425 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 14× “RCW 4.44.170; RCW 2.36.110; CrR 6.5. The operation of these statutes and rules depends on whether the juror is a potential, impaneled, or deliberating juror.”
State v. Kwan Fai Mak, 718 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 9× “2d 514 (1982); see RCW 4.44.170; CrR 6.4(c)(1). [30] Gosser , at 433, quoting State v.”
State v. Noltie, 809 P.2d 190 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 6× “Juror bias is defined in RCW 4.44.170. This juror was a hospital employee and there was no evidence of any "implied" statutory bias as defined by RCW 4.”
State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 4× “The State argues RCW 4.44.170(2) and CrR 6.4(c) provide sufficient basis for death qualification.”
State Of Washington v. Mario R Guevara-diaz, 456 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.”
State v. Lawler, 374 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.170(2). Actual bias occurs when there is “the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the…”
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “RCW 4.44.170; 3 RCW 4.44.190; 4 RCW 4.44.”
State v. Latham, 667 P.2d 56 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 5× “Actual bias is defined as the existence of a state of mind which satisfies the judge that the juror "cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging". RCW 4.44.170(2). Implied bias, on the other hand, arises when a juror…”
State v. Gentry, 888 P.2d 1105 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “4(c); RCW 4.44.170(2). [101] State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.”
State v. Tingdale, 817 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 4× “Jurors may be removed for cause if they: (1) possess a state of mind "which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice", (2) if they are related to one of the parties, (3) if they have sat on a jury in a previous trial…”
State v. Brett, 892 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “See RCW 4.44.170(2). A juror with preconceived ideas need not be disqualified if that juror can set those ideas aside and "decide the case on the basis of the evidence given at the trial and the law as given him by the court.”
State v. Gosser, 656 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.44.170. We are here concerned with actual bias.”
Show all 166 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170(1) — 22 cases
State v. Kwan Fai Mak, 718 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1986). “2d 514 (1982); see RCW 4.44.170; CrR 6.4(c)(1). [30] Gosser , at 433, quoting State v.”
State v. Noltie, 809 P.2d 190 (Wash. 1991). “Juror bias is defined in RCW 4.44.170. This juror was a hospital employee and there was no evidence of any "implied" statutory bias as defined by RCW 4.”
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 4.44.170; 3 RCW 4.44.190; 4 RCW 4.44.”
State v. Cho, 30 P.3d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Cho, 108 Wash. App. 315 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170(2) — 138 cases
State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 425 P.3d 807 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 4.44.170; RCW 2.36.110; CrR 6.5. The operation of these statutes and rules depends on whether the juror is a potential, impaneled, or deliberating juror.”
State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997). “The State argues RCW 4.44.170(2) and CrR 6.4(c) provide sufficient basis for death qualification.”
State v. Kwan Fai Mak, 718 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1986). “2d 514 (1982); see RCW 4.44.170; CrR 6.4(c)(1). [30] Gosser , at 433, quoting State v.”
State Of Washington v. Mario R Guevara-diaz, 456 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging.”
State v. Lawler, 374 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 4.44.170(2). Actual bias occurs when there is “the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.170(3) — 1 case
State v. Kwan Fai Mak, 718 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1986). “2d 514 (1982); see RCW 4.44.170; CrR 6.4(c)(1). [30] Gosser , at 433, quoting State v.”
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.