Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.330
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.330.190 (2026)

Reimbursement of extraordinary criminal justice costs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Counties may submit a petition for relief to the office of public defense for reimbursement of extraordinary criminal justice costs. Extraordinary criminal justice costs are defined as those associated with investigation, prosecution, indigent defense, jury impanelment, expert witnesses, interpreters, incarceration, and other adjudication costs of aggravated murder cases.
(1) The office of public defense, in consultation with the Washington association of prosecuting attorneys and the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs, shall develop procedures for processing the petitions, for auditing the veracity of the petitions, and for prioritizing the petitions. Prioritization of the petitions shall be based on, but not limited to, such factors as disproportionate fiscal impact relative to the county budget, efficient use of resources, and whether the costs are extraordinary and could not be reasonably accommodated and anticipated in the normal budget process.
(2) Before January 1st of each year, the office of public defense, in consultation with the Washington association of prosecuting attorneys and the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs, shall develop and submit to the appropriate fiscal committees of the senate and house of representatives a prioritized list of submitted petitions that are recommended for funding by the legislature.
[ 1999 c 303 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: State v. Cross, 156 Wash. 2d 580 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cross, 156 Wash. 2d 580 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 43.330.190, .200. f 141 We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, that the verdict was proportional, and that it was not the product of passion or prejudice.”
State v. Cross, 132 P.3d 80 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 43.330.190, .200. ś 141 We hold there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, that the verdict was proportional, and that it was not the product of passion or prejudice.”
Washington State Assoc. Of Counties, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “060; RCW 43.330.190. Washington’s counties are responsible for providing the remainder of the funding for indigent defense services.”
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.