Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 43.10.232 (2026)
Concurrent authority to investigate crimes and initiate and conduct prosecutions—Payment of costs
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The attorney general shall have concurrent authority and power with the prosecuting attorneys to investigate crimes and initiate and conduct prosecutions upon the request of or with the concurrence of any of the following:
(a) The county prosecuting attorney of the jurisdiction in which the offense has occurred;
(b) The governor of the state of Washington; or
(c) A majority of the committee charged with the oversight of the organized crime intelligence unit.
(2) Such request or concurrence shall be communicated in writing to the attorney general.
(3) Prior to any prosecution by the attorney general under this section, the attorney general and the county in which the offense occurred shall reach an agreement regarding the payment of all costs, including expert witness fees, and defense attorneys' fees associated with any such prosecution.
Notes:
Severability—1986 c 257: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: City of Tacoma v. State, 816 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1991).
City of Tacoma v. State, 816 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1991). “2d 783 (1985), the Attorney General prosecuted a criminal case pursuant to RCW 43.10.232. The trial court ordered the State, rather than the county indigent defense fund, to pay the attorney and expert witness fees.”
Tacoma News, Inc. v. Cayce, 256 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2011). “Pursuant to RCW 43.10.232, the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney's Office asked the State to conduct the prosecution.”
State v. Howard, 722 P.2d 783 (Wash. 1986). “In this criminal case filed by the Attorney General pursuant to RCW 43.10.232, we are asked to decide if the State or the County is responsible for the indigent defendant's attorney and expert witness fees.”
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (W.D. Wash. 2014). “Under RCW 43.10.232: (1) The attorney general shall have concurrent authority and power with the prosecuting attorneys to investigate crimes and initiate and conduct prosecutions upon the request of or with the concurrence of any of the following: (a) The county prosecuting…”
Jewett v. Hawkins, 868 P.2d 146 (Wash. 1994). “When Jewett first accused Pickard of criminal wrongdoing, a decision was made to refer the investigation to the Attorney General, in accordance with RCW 43.10.232. That decision, however, was made by Hawkins’ predecessor, David Thiele.”
Brooks Jr v. Ballard (E.D. Wash. 2024). “See RCW 43.10.232. No caselaw establishes a court’s jurisdiction 12 over a criminal matter initiated by a private citizen because a Washington Superior 13 14 3 Plaintiff asserts causes of action for Assault under RCW 9A.”
Brooks Jr v. Ballard (E.D. Wash. 2024). “See 5 RCW 43.10.232. No caselaw establishes a court’s jurisdiction over a criminal 6 matter initiated by a private citizen because a Washington Superior Court only 7 acquires subject matter jurisdiction over a criminal action when an indictment or 8 information is filed by the…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 43.10.232(1): 1 case
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (W.D. Wash. 2014). “Under RCW 43.10.232: (1) The attorney general shall have concurrent authority and power with the prosecuting attorneys to investigate crimes and initiate and conduct prosecutions upon the request of or with the concurrence of any of the following: (a) The county prosecuting…”
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.