Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.300 (2026)
Care of jury while deliberating
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
During deliberations, the jury may be allowed to separate unless good cause is shown, on the record, for sequestration of the jury. Unless the members of a deliberating jury are allowed to separate, they must be kept together in a room provided for them, or some other convenient place under the charge of one or more officers, until they agree upon their verdict, or are discharged by the court. The officer shall, to the best of his or her ability, keep the jury separate from other persons. The officer shall not allow any communication to be made to them, nor make any himself or herself, unless by order of the court, except to ask them if they have agreed upon their verdict, and the officer shall not, before the verdict is rendered, communicate to any person the state of their deliberations or the verdict agreed on.
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. CR 47(i), 51(h).
Admonitions to jury, separation: RCW 4.44.280.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2022 · leading case: State v. Smalls, 665 P.2d 384 (Wash. 1983).
State v. Smalls, 665 P.2d 384 (Wash. 1983). “7 does not authorize separation of the jury after deliberations begin and that *757 RCW 4.44.300 creates a presumption of prejudice to the defendant if the jury is separated during deliberations.”
Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 756 P.2d 142 (Wash. 1988). “Thus, where, in violation of RCW 4.44.300, a bailiff engages in misconduct by communicating matters to a jury which may prejudice the verdict, and the information supplied to the jury can be ascertained without probing the jurors' mental processes, the trial court must grant a…”
State v. Bockman, 682 P.2d 925 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “7 then in effect applied only to proceedings prior to the beginning of deliberations and that RCW 4.44.300 was not superseded by CrR 6.”
State v. Robinson, 146 Wash. App. 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 4.44.300. Nor does the record show that the trial court ever asked whether the bailiff communicated with any juror.”
State v. Crowell, 594 P.2d 905 (Wash. 1979). “Such a review is anticipated by RCW 4.44.300, which states that, while the jury is deliberating, the bailiff "must not suffer any communication to be made to them, nor make any himself, unless by order of the court .”
State v. Jackman, 783 P.2d 580 (Wash. 1989). “Johnson 's reasoning was deemed controlling in another automobile accident case in which the jury had deliberated only 13 or 14 minutes, with special note taken that by statute "`the jury may either decide in the jury box or retire for deliberation.”
State v. Yonker, 133 Wash. App. 627 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 466 (1983)); see RCW 4.44.300. 5 *635 The bailiff is in a sense the judge’s “alter-ego” and is therefore bound by the same constraints as the judge.”
State v. Koontz, 41 P.3d 475 (Wash. 2002). “, RCW 4.44.300 (care of jury while deliberating); CrR 6.”
State v. Koontz, 145 Wash. 2d 650 (Wash. 2002). “, RCW 4.44.300 (care of jury while deliberating); CrR 6.”
State v. Saraceno, 596 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “3 (1968); RCW 4.44.300; CrR 6.15(f). In Remmer v. United States, 347 U.”
State v. Yonker, 137 P.3d 888 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 466 (1983)); see RCW 4.44.300. [5] The bailiff is in a sense the judge's "alter-ego" and is therefore bound by the same constraints as the judge.”
State v. Russell, 611 P.2d 1320 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “" 10 See RCW 4.44.300; ROW 4.44.320; CrR 6.7; CrR 6.”
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.