Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.125
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.125.065 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Records maintained by a community sexual assault program and underserved populations provider shall not be made available to any defense attorney as part of discovery in a sexual assault case unless:
(1) A written pretrial motion is made by the defendant to the court stating that the defendant is requesting discovery of the community sexual assault program or underserved populations provider records;
(2) The written motion is accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth specifically the reasons why the defendant is requesting discovery of the community sexual assault program or underserved populations provider records;
(3) The court reviews the community sexual assault program or underserved populations provider records in camera to determine whether the community sexual assault program or underserved populations provider records are relevant and whether the probative value of the records is outweighed by the victim's privacy interest in the confidentiality of such records taking into account the further trauma that may be inflicted upon the victim by the disclosure of the records to the defendant; and
(4) The court enters an order stating whether the records or any part of the records are discoverable and setting forth the basis for the court's findings.
[ 2012 c 29 s 11; 1981 c 145 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: State v. Kalakosky, 852 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kalakosky, 852 P.2d 1064 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 8× “The prosecution deferred to the rape crisis center on the issue of federal preemption, but alternatively argued that the defendant had failed to make the requisite threshold showing to justify an in camera review under the state statute, RCW 70.125.065. The trial court denied…”
State v. Ahlfinger, 749 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “RCW 70.125.065 provides for the confidentiality of rape crisis center records and prohibits their discovery by defense counsel unless, after the court reviews the notes in camera, it determines that they are relevant and their probative value outweighs the victim's privacy…”
Magney v. Pham, 466 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2020). “We hold that refusing in camera review of the marital counseling records was untenable, and the superior court abused its discretion in not allowing in camera review.”
State v. Diemel, 914 P.2d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “On appeal, Diemel now claims Kalakosky is distinguishable and does not apply because it interprets the rape crisis center statute, RCW 70.125.065, and records therefrom, whereas his request was for counseling records protected under a different statute 4 and discoverable under a…”
State v. Espinosa, 733 P.2d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 11× “He alleges the trial court erred in ruling that, pursuant to RCW 70.125.065, King County Rape Relief records of an interview with the victim were not discoverable.”
State v. Gregory, 147 P.3d 1201 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “RCW 70.125.065 requires a written motion and affidavits setting forth specifically the reasons why the defendant is requesting discovery.”
State v. Gregory, 147 P.3d 1201 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “RCW 70.125.065 requires a written motion and affidavits setting forth specifically the reasons why the defendant is requesting discovery.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.125.065(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gregory, 147 P.3d 1201 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 70.125.065 requires a written motion and affidavits setting forth specifically the reasons why the defendant is requesting discovery.”
State v. Gregory, 147 P.3d 1201 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 70.125.065 requires a written motion and affidavits setting forth specifically the reasons why the defendant is requesting discovery.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.125.065(3) — 2 cases
Magney v. Pham, 466 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2020). “We hold that refusing in camera review of the marital counseling records was untenable, and the superior court abused its discretion in not allowing in camera review.”
State v. Espinosa, 733 P.2d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “He alleges the trial court erred in ruling that, pursuant to RCW 70.125.065, King County Rape Relief records of an interview with the victim were not discoverable.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.125.065(4) — 1 case
State v. Espinosa, 733 P.2d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “He alleges the trial court erred in ruling that, pursuant to RCW 70.125.065, King County Rape Relief records of an interview with the victim were not discoverable.”
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.