Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.020 (2026)
Who may testify
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person of sound mind and discretion, except as hereinafter provided, may be a witness in any action, or proceeding.
[ 1986 c 195 s 1; Code 1881 s 388; 1877 p 85 s 390; 1869 p 103 s 383; 1854 p 186 s 289; RRS s 1210.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: State v. Johnston, 177 P.3d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Johnston, 177 P.3d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 201 (1982); RCW 5.60.020; CrR 6.12. An adult witness is incompetent to testify if he or she is of “unsound mind” or appears incapable of receiving and relating accurate impressions of the facts about which they are examined.”
State v. Kennealy, 151 Wash. App. 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 5.60.020. A child witness is competent to testify if he or she (1) understands the obligation to speak the truth on the witness stand, (2) has the mental capacity at the time of the occurrence to receive an accurate impression of it, (3) has a memory sufficient to retain an…”
State v. Kennealy, 214 P.3d 200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 5.60.020. A child witness is competent to testify if he or she: (1) understands the obligation to speak the truth on *208 the witness stand; (2) has the mental capacity at the time of the occurrence to receive an accurate impression of it; (3) has a memory sufficient to…”
State v. C.M.B., 125 P.3d 211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” 12 The same statute removed “suitable age” from the qualifications of competency set out in RCW 5.60.020. 13 The changes in the statutes removed the distinction between the competency of children and adults and eliminated any presumptive age of competency of a child, upon…”
State v. Brousseau, 259 P.3d 209 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 5.60.020, .050; CrR 6.12. Indeed, absent a challenge to competency, the trial court need not conduct a competency hearing at all.”
State v. Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d 331 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 5.60.020, .050; CrR 6.12. Indeed, absent a challenge to competency, the trial court need not conduct a competency hearing at all.”
State v. S.J.W., 170 Wash. 2d 92 (Wash. 2010). “See RCW 5.60.020 (“Every person of sound mind and discretion .”
Yakima Cnty. v. Law Enf't Officers, 237 P.3d 316 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 5.60.020. For these reasons, the County concludes that reinstating Ms.”
Yakima Cnty. v. Yakima Cnty. Law Enf't Officers Guild, 157 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 5.60.020. For these reasons, the County concludes that reinstating Ms.”
State v. Mankin, 241 P.3d 421 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “[9] Clark was superceded on other grounds when the legislature amended former RCW 5.60.020 (1881) in 1986. Laws of 1986, ch.”
State v. Mankin, 158 Wash. App. 111 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Clark was superseded on other grounds when the legislature amended former RCW 5.60.020 (1881) in 1986. Laws of 1986, ch.”
State v. Watkins, 857 P.2d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “" RCW 5.60.020. 3 The section on mental capacity provides in pertinent part as follows: The following persons shall not be competent to testify: (1) Those who are of unsound mind .”
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.