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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.210 (2026)

Peremptory challenges, how taken

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The jurors having been examined as to their qualifications, first by the plaintiff and then by the defendant, and passed for cause, the peremptory challenges shall be conducted as follows, to wit:
The plaintiff may challenge one, and then the defendant may challenge one, and so alternately until the peremptory challenges shall be exhausted. During this alternating process, if one of the parties declines to exercise a peremptory challenge, then that party may no longer peremptorily challenge any of the jurors in the group for which challenges are then being considered and may only peremptorily challenge any jurors later added to that group. A refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation shall not prevent the adverse party from using the full number of challenges.
[ 2003 c 406 s 9; Code 1881 s 215; 1877 p 45 s 219; 1869 p 53 s 219; RRS s 333.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: State v. Williamson, 996 P.2d 1097 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Williamson, 996 P.2d 1097 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Williamson's motions for new trial on the kidnapping charge, granted it on the attempted murder charge, and sentenced Mr. Williamson to 119 months for the kidnapping charge and firearm enhancement.”
State v. Williamson, 100 Wash. App. 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Williamson to 119 months for the kidnapping charge and firearm enhancement. DISCUSSION Late Peremptory Challenge.”
Portch v. Sommerville, 113 Wash. App. 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “The procedure utilized in exercising this right is set forth in RCW 4.44.210, which states: The jurors having been examined as to their qualifications, first by the plaintiff and then by the defendant, and passed for cause, the peremptory challenges shall be conducted as…”
State v. Evans, 612 P.2d 442 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.210, relating to peremptory challenges, states in pertinent part: [S]uch refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges…”
Portch v. Sommerville, 55 P.3d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “210, which states: The jurors having been examined as to their qualifications, first by the plaintiff and then by the defendant, and passed for cause, the peremptory challenges shall be conducted as follows, to wit: The plaintiff may challenge one, and then the defendant may…”
State Of Washington, Resp v. Martin Dale Adams, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.210 sets forth the procedure for peremptory challenges.”
State Of Washington, V Richard Wayne Blair (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “” During jury selection, Blair and the prosecutor recorded their peremptory challenges by exchanging a list and alternately writing the names of the potential jurors they sought to challenge. After the prosecutor wrote six potential jurors’ names, Blair chose to exercise only…”
State Of Washington, V Albert K. Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” A similar rule in RCW 4.44.210 provides that if one party declines to exercise a peremptory challenge, “that party may no longer peremptorily challenge any of the jurors in the group for which challenges are then being considered and may only peremptorily challenge any jurors…”
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.