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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.240 (2026)

Challenge determination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When facts are determined under RCW 4.44.230, the rules of evidence applicable to testimony offered upon the trial of an ordinary issue of fact shall govern. The juror challenged, or any other person otherwise competent may be examined as a witness by either party. If the challenge is sustained, the juror shall be dismissed from the case; otherwise, the juror shall be retained.
[ 2003 c 406 s 12; Code 1881 s 218; 1877 p 45 s 222; 1869 p 54 s 222; RRS s 336.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1991–2018 · 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 2× “" RCW 4.44.240. "The law presumes that each juror sworn in a case is impartial and above legal exception, otherwise he would have been challenged for 'cause.”
State v. Jorden, 11 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “110, [3] not RCW 4.44.240, [4] governed the issue and allowed the parties to argue and to present witnesses.”
State v. Jorden, 103 Wash. App. 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “110, 3 not RCW 4.44.240, 4 governed the issue and allowed the parties to argue and to present witnesses.”
State v. Love, 309 P.3d 1209 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 4.44.240 does provide for testimony if needed to assess a question of juror bias.”
Ottis v. Stevenson-Carson Sch. Dist. No. 303, 812 P.2d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “230. If the denial is based on a claim that the alleged facts are not true, the court "shall try the issue and determine the law and the facts.”
State v. Saintcalle, 309 P.3d 326 (Wash. 2013). “130 (1926) (rules of evidence apply); RCW 4.44.240. In contrast, litigants are afforded a limited number of peremptory challenges and generally need not specify any reasons for such challenges.”
State v. Saintcalle (Wash. 2013). “130 (1926) (rules of evidence apply); RCW 4.44.240. In contrast, litigants are afforded a limited number of peremptory challenges and generally need not specify any reasons for such challenges.”
State v. Saintcalle (Wash. 2013). “130 (1926) (rules of evidence apply); RCW 4.44.240. In contrast, litigants are afforded a limited number of peremptory challenges and generally need not specify any reasons for such challenges.”
State of Washington v. Unters Lewis Love (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The experience and logic test confirms that the trial court did not erroneously r close the courtroom by hearing the defendant's for cause challenges at sidebar, nor would I 7 RCW 4.44.240 does provide for testimony if needed to assess a question ofjuror bias.”
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.