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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.180 (2026)

Implied bias defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A challenge for implied bias may be taken for any or all of the following causes, and not otherwise:
(1) Consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to either party.
(2) Standing in the relation of guardian and ward, attorney and client, master and servant or landlord and tenant, to a party; or being a member of the family of, or a partner in business with, or in the employment for wages, of a party, or being surety or bail in the action called for trial, or otherwise, for a party.
(3) Having served as a juror on a previous trial in the same action, or in another action between the same parties for the same cause of action, or in a criminal action by the state against either party, upon substantially the same facts or transaction.
(4) Interest on the part of the juror in the event of the action, or the principal question involved therein, excepting always, the interest of the juror as a member or citizen of the county or municipal corporation.
[ 2003 c 406 s 7; Code 1881 s 212; 1877 p 44 s 216; 1869 p 52 s 216; 1854 p 165 s 187; RRS s 330.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “190; 4 RCW 4.44.180; 5 see also CR 47(e). A. Actual Bias Actual bias means the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, with reference to the action or any party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without…”
Carle v. McChord Credit Union, 827 P.2d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “RCW 4.44.180(4). The reasoning necessary to determine whether a juror is impliedly biased due to interest in the action involves two steps.”
State v. Boiko, 138 Wash. App. 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “Riley is not relevant because the plain language of the implied bias statute limits the relationships under which implied bias may be found: “A challenge for implied bias may be taken for any or all of the [enumerated] causes, and not otherwise.”
Martini v. State, 121 Wash. App. 150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 17× “He relied on RCW 4.44.180(2), 10 which implies bias on the part of anyone “in the employment for wages [] of the adverse party.”
State Of Washington v. Cleon O. Moen, 422 P.3d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Moreover, RCW 4.44.180 does not provide that a juror’s knowledge of a case demonstrates implied bias.”
State v. Juniors, 915 So. 2d 291 (La. 2005). “050(1)(c) (2004); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 4.44.180(2) (2004).”
Martini Ex Rel. Dussault v. State, 89 P.3d 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “[45] RCW 4.44.180 provides in full: A challenge for implied bias may be taken for any or all of the following causes, and not otherwise: .”
State v. Latham, 667 P.2d 56 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.180. Latham challenged two jurors, Wright and Flagel, for cause.”
In Re Crace, 236 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.180. Providing dishonest or materially misleading answers during voir dire in an effort to persuade the parties that one should serve on the jury can provide a basis for implied basis because the desire to serve on a jury at the expense of answering voir dire inquiries…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Crace, 157 Wash. App. 81 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.180. Providing dishonest or materially misleading answers during voir dire in an effort to persuade the parties that one should serve on the jury can provide a basis for implied bias because the desire to serve on a jury at the expense of answering voir dire inquiries…”
State v. Johnson, 712 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “RCW 4.44.180, applicable to criminal proceedings through CrR 6.”
State v. Smith, 555 P.3d 850 (Wash. 2024). “RCW 4.44.180 (implied bias defined). Whether such a relationship or interest exists is a question of preliminary fact.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.180(1) — 5 cases
State Of Washington v. Cleon O. Moen, 422 P.3d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Moreover, RCW 4.44.180 does not provide that a juror’s knowledge of a case demonstrates implied bias.”
State v. Boiko, 138 Wash. App. 256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Riley is not relevant because the plain language of the implied bias statute limits the relationships under which implied bias may be found: “A challenge for implied bias may be taken for any or all of the [enumerated] causes, and not otherwise.”
State v. Boiko, 156 P.3d 934 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State Of Washington, V. Theotry Olson (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
State of Washington v. Jamaar Antonio Grace (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.180(2) — 13 cases
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “190; 4 RCW 4.44.180; 5 see also CR 47(e). A. Actual Bias Actual bias means the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, with reference to the action or any party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without…”
Martini v. State, 121 Wash. App. 150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “He relied on RCW 4.44.180(2), 10 which implies bias on the part of anyone “in the employment for wages [] of the adverse party.”
State v. Juniors, 915 So. 2d 291 (La. 2005). “050(1)(c) (2004); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 4.44.180(2) (2004).”
Martini Ex Rel. Dussault v. State, 89 P.3d 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[45] RCW 4.44.180 provides in full: A challenge for implied bias may be taken for any or all of the following causes, and not otherwise: .”
State v. Johnson, 712 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 4.44.180, applicable to criminal proceedings through CrR 6.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.180(4) — 9 cases
Carle v. McChord Credit Union, 827 P.2d 1070 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 4.44.180(4). The reasoning necessary to determine whether a juror is impliedly biased due to interest in the action involves two steps.”
Kuhn v. Schnall, 228 P.3d 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “190; 4 RCW 4.44.180; 5 see also CR 47(e). A. Actual Bias Actual bias means the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, with reference to the action or any party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without…”
Dean v. Grp. Health Coop. of Puget Sound, 816 P.2d 757 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
State of Washington v. Cristian Lupastean (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
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.