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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.440 (2026)

Inconsistency between special findings of fact and general verdict

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When special findings of fact are inconsistent with the general verdict, the judge may enter judgment consistent with the findings of fact, may return the jurors to the jury room for further deliberations, or may order a new trial.
[ 2003 c 406 s 24; Code 1881 s 243; 1877 p 50 s 247; 1869 p 60 s 247; 1854 p 167 s 201; RRS s 365.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. CR 49(b).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1974–2014 · leading case: State v. Goins, 92 P.3d 181 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Goins, 92 P.3d 181 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 35× “In the alternative, he argues that former RCW 4.44.440, amended by Laws of 2003, ch.”
State v. Goins, 151 Wash. 2d 728 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 35× “In the alternative, he argues that former RCW 4.44.440, amended by Laws of 2003, ch.”
State v. McNeal, 37 P.3d 280 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 7× “The dissent asserts that “[t]his case is controlled by RCW 4.44.440,” noting that this statute says that “a special finding” controls “the [inconsistent] general verdict.”
State v. Goins, 54 P.3d 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 21× “This, in turn, requires a determination of whether the inconsistent verdicts are automatically void, in which event the remedy is a new trial on both charges, or whether the general verdict should be upheld if there is sufficient evidence to support it.”
State v. Goins, 113 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 20× “Goins also argues that RCW 4.44.440 is applicable to inconsistent verdicts in criminal trials.”
State v. Roberts, 611 P.2d 1297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “See RCW 4.44.440. The defendant was charged with first-degree rape.”
State v. Ford, 250 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2011). “" RCW 4.44.440. Similarly, when a jury returns a unanimous verdict but polling reveals disagreement among individual jurors, "the jury may be directed to retire for further deliberations.”
State v. Robinson, 523 P.2d 1192 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “Based on the foregoing, defendant asserts, that since the “special verdict” based upon- “special findings of fact” is inconsistent with the general verdict of guilt, the special verdict must control, citing RCW 4.44.440. *45 Special verdict controls.”
State v. Ford, 171 Wash. 2d 185 (Wash. 2011). “” RCW 4.44.440. Similarly, when a jury returns a unanimous verdict but polling reveals disagreement among individual jurors, “the jury may be directed to retire for further deliberations.”
Espinoza v. Am. Com. Ins., 336 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Because the parties did not agree how to proceed, the court discharged the jury and ordered a new trial pursuant to RCW 4.44.440. ¶27 Despite the grant of a new trial, each party filed a posttrial motion to be declared the trial winner.”
State v. Kimball, 546 P.2d 1217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “20 states that “[o]ne who, without possession of a deadly weapon, aids and abets another who possesses a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, is equally guilty with the principal of possessing a deadly weapon,” and a general verdict of “guilty” as to both Kimball and Herd…”
State v. McNeal, 37 P.3d 280 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 7× “This case is controlled by RCW 4.44.440, under which special verdicts control general verdicts.”
Show all 13 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.