Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.200 (2026)

Party or witness not excused from answering

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A party or witness examined in a special proceeding authorized by this chapter is not excused from answering a question on the ground that his or her examination will tend to convict him or her of a commission of a fraud, or to prove that he or she has been a party to or privy to or knowing of a conveyance, assignment, transfer, or other disposition of property for any purpose; or that he, she, or another person claims to be entitled as against the judgment creditor or receiver appointed or to be appointed in the special proceeding to hold property derived from or through the judgment debtor, or to be discharged from the payment of a debt which was due to the judgment debtor or to a person in his or her behalf. But an answer cannot be used as evidence against the person so answering in a criminal action or criminal proceeding.
[ 2011 c 336 s 162; 1893 c 133 s 20; RRS s 632.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: Eastham v. Arndt, 624 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eastham v. Arndt, 624 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 13× “200 is adequate to justify the compulsion of a person's testimony over his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) whether the appellant has made a sufficient showing that his answers to questions might tend to incriminate him so as to enable the…”
Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 660 P.2d 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “*113 RCW 6.32.200 states in part, "[b]ut an answer cannot be used as evidence against the person so answering in a criminal action or criminal proceeding.”
Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. Rogers, 660 P.2d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The court found Rogers in contempt and ordered him incarcerated until he answered the question, but stayed the order pending this appeal.”
In Re Dependency Of : A.m-s., Dob: 12/17/08, Sergio Michel-garcia, Pet v. State Of Wa, Resp, 454 P.3d 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Under RCW 6.32.200, if a debtor answers questions posed during supplemental proceedings, those answers may not be used against that debtor in a criminal proceeding.”
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.