Wash. Rev. Code » Title 5 · Chapter 5.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.050 (2026)

Who are incompetent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The following persons shall not be competent to testify:
(1) Those who are of unsound mind, or intoxicated at the time of their production for examination, and
(2) Those who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts, respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.
[ 1986 c 195 s 2; Code 1881 s 391; 1877 p 86 s 393; 1869 p 103 s 386; 1863 p 154 s 33; 1854 p 186 s 293; RRS s 1213.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: State v. Ryan, 691 P.2d 197 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ryan, 691 P.2d 197 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 12× “RCW 5.60.050. *172 [3] It is clear that children under 10 are not statutorily incompetent.”
State v. S.J.W., 170 Wash. 2d 92 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 13× “¶1 This case asks us to determine which party under RCW 5.60.050 bears the burden to establish a 14-year-old child’s competency and whether a trial court should presume a child is competent to testify as a witness.”
State v. Froehlich, 635 P.2d 127 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 14× “All are concerned with the competency of children within the limitations of RCW 5.”
State v. Brousseau, 259 P.3d 209 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “, we explained that under RCW 5.60.050, all witnesses—children and adults alike—are presumed competent until proved otherwise by a preponderance of evidence.”
State v. Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d 331 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “, we explained that under RCW 5.60.050, all witnesses — children and adults alike — are presumed competent until proved otherwise by a preponderance of evidence.”
State v. C.J., 63 P.3d 765 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 4× “A child’s competency to testify at trial is determined within the framework of RCW 5.60.050. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d at 172 (citing State v.”
Jenkins v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 713 P.2d 79 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 6× “2d 1021 (1967), which interpreted RCW 5.60.050. [2] Lance's deposition testimony indicates that he is *110 aware of his surroundings and can answer questions intelligently.”
State v. John Doe, 719 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 6× “This court held "[c]ompetency is a matter to be determined by the trial court within the framework of RCW 5.60.050." Ryan , at 172. Here, the trial court made no determination about the child's competency, and as a result, the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial…”
State v. SJW, 239 P.3d 568 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 13× “¶ 1 This case asks us to determine which party under RCW 5.60.050 bears the burden to establish a 14-year-old child's competency and whether a trial court should presume a child is competent to testify as a witness.”
State v. Mines, 671 P.2d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “2d 775 (1971). The evidence did not show that the "services were necessary for an adequate defense" or that Dixson's alleged mental condition caused her to be of unsound mind.”
State v. Darden, 41 P.3d 1189 (Wash. 2002). “However, statutory privileges under RCW 5.60.050 stem from communications that in one form or another are considered confidential.”
State v. C.M.B., 125 P.3d 211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “” 3 An exception to this general rule of competency is RCW 5.60.050, which states: The following persons shall not be competent to testify: (1) Those who are of unsound mind, or intoxicated at the time of their production for examination, and (2) Those who appear incapable of…”
Show all 103 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.050(1) — 11 cases
State v. Froehlich, 635 P.2d 127 (Wash. 1981). “All are concerned with the competency of children within the limitations of RCW 5.”
State v. Mines, 671 P.2d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “2d 775 (1971). The evidence did not show that the "services were necessary for an adequate defense" or that Dixson's alleged mental condition caused her to be of unsound mind.”
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009).
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009).
State v. Cross, 234 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.050(2) — 37 cases
State v. Froehlich, 635 P.2d 127 (Wash. 1981). “All are concerned with the competency of children within the limitations of RCW 5.”
State v. Brousseau, 172 Wash. 2d 331 (Wash. 2011). “, we explained that under RCW 5.60.050, all witnesses — children and adults alike — are presumed competent until proved otherwise by a preponderance of evidence.”
State v. Ryan, 691 P.2d 197 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 5.60.050. *172 [3] It is clear that children under 10 are not statutorily incompetent.”
State v. Brousseau, 259 P.3d 209 (Wash. 2011). “, we explained that under RCW 5.60.050, all witnesses—children and adults alike—are presumed competent until proved otherwise by a preponderance of evidence.”
Jenkins v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 713 P.2d 79 (Wash. 1986). “2d 1021 (1967), which interpreted RCW 5.60.050. [2] Lance's deposition testimony indicates that he is *110 aware of his surroundings and can answer questions intelligently.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.050(9) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Christopher Fields, 553 P.3d 71 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
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.