Wash. Rev. Code » Title 71 · Chapter 71.06
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.06.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court shall proceed to hear the criminal charge. If the defendant is convicted or has previously pleaded guilty to such charge, judgment shall be pronounced, but the execution of the sentence may be deferred or suspended, as in other criminal cases, and the court shall then proceed to hear and determine the allegation of sexual psychopathy. Acquittal on the criminal charge shall not operate to suspend the hearing on the allegation of sexual psychopathy: PROVIDED, That the provisions of RCW 71.06.140 authorizing transfer of a committed sexual psychopath to a correctional institution shall not apply to the committed sexual psychopath who has been acquitted on the criminal charge.
[ 1967 c 104 s 1; 1959 c 25 s 71.06.030. Prior: 1951 c 223 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1975–1996 · leading case: State v. Edwards, 606 P.2d 1224 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Edwards, 606 P.2d 1224 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 5× “The court ultimately sentenced Edwards to the maximum possible, two consecutive life sentences, and entered a special finding that the crimes had been committed while the perpetrator was armed with the deadly weapon.”
State v. Huntzinger, 594 P.2d 917 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “RCW 71.06.030. If reasonable grounds are found to believe the defendant is a sexual psychopath, the court orders the defendant confined at the nearest state hospital for a period of observation not to exceed 90 days.”
State v. King, 925 P.2d 606 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 71.06.030. *526 Participation in the sexual psychopathy program is governed by statute.”
State v. Bunich, 626 P.2d 47 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “See RCW 71.06.030. As the result of a preliminary hearing, the court found reasonable grounds to believe that Bunich was a sexual psychopath and, in August 1979, ordered him confined to the state hospital for observation in accordance with RCW 71.”
State v. Carlow, 723 P.2d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Carlow filed a waiver of his right under RCW 71.06.030 2 to be sentenced prior to evaluation for sexual psychopathy; the court ordered him committed to Western State Hospital for a 90-day evaluation.”
State v. Bergen, 538 P.2d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “Following conviction on the criminal charge, judgment was pronounced and suspended as provided in RCW 71.06.030. Finally, after a commitment of 90 days for observation and a determination that Bergen was not a sexual psychopath, the trial court revoked the prior suspension of…”
State v. Edwards, 589 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “Nevertheless, RCW 71.06.030 declares, "but the execution of the sentence may be deferred or suspended, as in other criminal cases, .”
State v. Gann, 675 P.2d 1261 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See RCW 71.06.030. 1 An acquittal, however, does not affect the civil jurisdiction which the *523 court acquires upon the filing of a sexual psychopathy petition.”
State Ex Rel. Schillberg v. Morris, 536 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “Within this general framework, and after filing of the allegation of sexual psychopathy, RCW 71.06.030 provides in part: The court shall proceed to hear the criminal charge.”
State v. Daniels, 639 P.2d 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Daniels has filed a direct appeal and a personal restraint petition, consolidated for appeal, challenging his imprisonment without treatment.”
State v. King, 925 P.2d 606 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 71.06.040. Upon completion of the observation period used to determine whether a defendant is a sexual psychopath, the superintendent of the state hospital "shall return the defendant to the court, together with a written report of his findings as to whether or not the…”
State v. Huntzinger, 578 P.2d 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Osborn, 87 Wn.2d 161 , 550 P.2d 513 (1976). The court must then dispose of the criminal charge; this includes both rendering judgment and, if the defendant is guilty of the crime, pronouncing sentence.”
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.