Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.106 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any case in which an autopsy or postmortem is performed, the coroner or medical examiner, upon his or her own authority or upon the request of the prosecuting attorney or other law enforcement agency having jurisdiction, may make or cause to be made an analysis of the stomach contents, blood, or organs, or tissues of a deceased person and secure professional opinions thereon and retain or dispose of any specimens or organs of the deceased which in his or her discretion are desirable or needful for anatomic, bacteriological, chemical, or toxicological examination or upon lawful request are needed or desired for evidence to be presented in court. Costs shall be borne by the county.

[ 1993 c 228 s 19; 1987 c 331 s 59; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 28 s 1; 1953 c 188 s 10. Formerly RCW 68.08.106.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2008–2019 · leading case: State v. Lui, 315 P.3d 493 (Wash. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Lui, 315 P.3d 493 (Wash. 2014). “Indeed, the very reason medical examiners have a statutory duty to prepare written autopsy reports is to further and support the criminal prosecution of persons accused of assault, rape, murder, and other serious crimes.”

Adams v. King Cnty., 192 P.3d 891 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 68.50.106. However, such authority does not imply that the medical examiner has authority to retain the brain and merely return a veritable shell of the skull to the family for burial, absent some compelling reason for further examination.”

Adams v. King Cnty., 164 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 68.50.106. However, such authority does not imply that the medical examiner has authority to retain the brain and merely return a veritable shell of the skull to the family for burial, absent some compelling reason for further examination.”

Keith Dahl v. Gina Fino & Pac. Nw Forensic Pathologists (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “100 and RCW 68.50.106 for the claim of intentional misuse of a corpse, and (4) Dahl cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the essential element of presence at the injury-causing incident for the 1 Pacific Northwest Forensic Pathologists was named as a defendant…”

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.