Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.603 (2026)

Uniformity of interpretation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among those states which enact it.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 308 s 69.50.603.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wash. 2d 528 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wash. 2d 528 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 14× “Defendants argue that such a conclusion is warranted because (1) RCW 69.50.603 requires uniformity, (2) some mens rea is re *534 quired, (3) possession is a term of art which requires knowledge and the affirmative defense of unwitting possession improperly shifts the burden of…”
State v. Bradshaw, 98 P.3d 1190 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 13× “RCW 69.50.603 Does Not Add a Mens Rea Element to the Mere Possession Statute RCW 69.”
State v. Blake, 481 P.3d 521 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 4× “” RCW 69.50.603. “At least 48 states have adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and all but two (Washington and [at the time] North Dakota) expressly require knowledge to be -7- State v.”
State v. A.M., 448 P.3d 35 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “(quoting RCW 69.50.603). Finally, we repeatedly suggested that the legislature had acquiesced in our holding in Cleppe.”
State v. Morris, 896 P.2d 81 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “” RCW 69.50.603. 14 Compare RCW 69.50.101(f) with Uniform Controlled Substances Act § 101(f), 9 (pt.”
State v. Christman, 160 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 69.50.603. ¶20 But RCW 69.50.415, added in 1987, is not a part of the uniform act or any proposed modification to the uniform act, and there is no legislative history that identifies its source or explains its intended scope.”
State v. Ramirez, 814 P.2d 227 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 69.50.603. Significantly, virtually every court that has considered the issue has arrived at the same holding as did the Matson and Sherman courts.”
State v. Christman, 249 P.3d 680 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 69.50.603. ¶ 20 But RCW 69.50.415, added in 1987, is not a part of the uniform act or any proposed modification to the uniform act, and there is no legislative history that identifies its source or explains its intended scope.”
State Of Washington v. Mary Yokel, 196 Wash. App. 424 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d 227 (1991) (citing RCW 69.50.603). ¶14 Former RCW 69.50.4013(1) provides an affirmative defense to a person who lawfully possesses a controlled substance obtained “directly from” or “pursuant to” a valid prescription.”
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.