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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.190 (2026)

Challenge for actual bias

✓ 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 actual bias may be taken for the cause mentioned in RCW 4.44.170(2). But on the trial of such challenge, although it should appear that the juror challenged has formed or expressed an opinion upon what he or she may have heard or read, such opinion shall not of itself be sufficient to sustain the challenge, but the court must be satisfied, from all the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.
[ 2003 c 406 s 8; Code 1881 s 213; 1877 p 44 s 217; 1869 p 53 s 217; RRS s 331.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · 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 10× “" RCW 4.44.190 outlines the facts that a trial judge must find to dismiss a potential juror who was challenged for actual bias: 8 state V.”
State Of Washington v. Mario R Guevara-diaz, 456 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Berhe,38 the Washington Supreme Court stated that in the case of postverdict evaluation of alleged racial bias during jury deliberations, the investigation “must be conducted under the court’s supervision and on the record.”
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “170; 3 RCW 4.44.190; 4 RCW 4.44.180; 5 see also CR 47(e).”
State v. Kwan Fai Mak, 718 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “154 (1963); RCW 4.44.190. [31] State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.”
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Dawn Marie Sullivan, Appellant, 196 Wash. App. 277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “11 RCW 4.44.190; see RCW 4.44.170(2) (“Actual bias’’ means “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…”
State v. Noltie, 809 P.2d 190 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.190 further discusses actual bias: A challenge for actual bias may be taken for the cause mentioned in RCW 4.”
State Of Washington, V. Alejandro Pena Salvador, 487 P.3d 923 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.190; Guevara Diaz, 11 Wn. App. 2d at 855 .”
State v. Lawler, 374 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 4.44.190. Instead, “the court must be satisfied, from all the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.”
State v. Irby, 347 P.3d 1103 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶18 If it appears that a juror has formed an opinion, “such opinion shall not of itself be sufficient to sustain the challenge, but the court must be satisfied, from all the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.”
Brady v. Fibreboard Corp., 857 P.2d 1094 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.44.190. 4 Actual bias must be established by proof, State v.”
Miles v. F.E.R.M. Enterprices, Inc., 627 P.2d 564 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “170(2); see RCW 4.44.190. 1 *65 The test for error is per Rich v.”
State Of Washington, Resp/cross-app V. Justin Dominic Bell, App/cross-resp, 529 P.3d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 4.44.190. Voir dire, the part of jury selection wherein the parties ask questions and engage in discussion with potential jurors to draw out potential bias, is central to securing the right to an impartial jury.”
Show all 58 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.