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

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.06.091 (2026)

Postcommitment proceedings, releases, and further dispositions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A sexual psychopath committed pursuant to RCW 71.06.060 shall be retained by the superintendent of the institution involved until in the superintendent's opinion he or she is safe to be at large, or until he or she has received the maximum benefit of treatment, or is not amenable to treatment, but the superintendent is unable to render an opinion that he or she is safe to be at large. Thereupon, the superintendent of the institution involved shall so inform whatever court committed the sexual psychopath. The court then may order such further examination and investigation of such person as seems necessary, and may at its discretion, summon such person before it for further hearing, together with any witnesses whose testimony may be pertinent, and together with any relevant documents and other evidence. On the basis of such reports, investigation, and possible hearing, the court shall determine whether the person before it shall be released unconditionally from custody as a sexual psychopath, released conditionally, returned to the custody of the institution as a sexual psychopath, or transferred to the department of corrections to serve the original sentence imposed upon him or her. The power of the court to grant conditional release for any such person before it shall be the same as its power to grant, amend, and revoke probation as provided by chapter 9.95 RCW. When the sexual psychopath has entered upon the conditional release, the indeterminate sentence review board shall supervise such person pursuant to the terms and conditions of the conditional release, as set by the court: PROVIDED, That the superintendent of the institution involved shall never release the sexual psychopath from custody without a court release as herein set forth.
[ 2012 c 117 s 435; 1981 c 136 s 64; 1979 c 141 s 130; 1967 c 104 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—1981 c 136: See RCW 72.09.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1977–2004 · leading case: State v. McCarter, 588 P.2d 745 (Wash. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McCarter, 588 P.2d 745 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 4× “In 1975, a hearing was held pursuant to RCW 71.06.091 to determine whether petitioner should remain in the sexual psychopath program and continue to be confined at the hospital.”
State v. Anderson, 655 P.2d 1196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “After 17 months in the sex offender program, defendant was returned to the court, pursuant to RCW 71.06.091, the hospital staff having found that he was not amenable to further treatment.”
Plotkin v. State, 826 P.2d 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “In the third, she alleged that the State and the Board were hable because the Board violated RCW 71.06.091 when it failed to obtain the approval of Doran's sentencing court before granting parole, conditional discharge and final discharge.”
State v. King, 925 P.2d 606 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 71.06.091. Pursuant to the statutes, Western State Hospital was required to advise the King County Superior Court of King’s admissions of additional criminal activity, made during both the evaluation and treatment phases of the Sex Offender Program, because those admissions…”
State v. King, 897 P.2d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Bail, supra, Pens was committed to the Western Program following convictions for two counts of first degree rape, but he was not sentenced before commitment as required by RCW 71.06.091. The therapists at Western assured Pens that his disclosures during treatment would not be…”
State v. Edwards, 771 P.2d 755 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 11× “Outpatient Treatment Edwards sought appointment of an expert at public expense to determine his amenability to "intensive outpatient treatment", relying on the conditional release provision in RCW 71.06.091. The trial court denied Edwards's motion, because the court read the…”
State v. Edwards, 606 P.2d 1224 (Wash. 1980). “See also RCW 71.06.091 (dispositional alternatives after treatment include returning "to serve the original sentence imposed upon him.”
State v. McCarter, 562 P.2d 995 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 8× “[2] Although the sexual psychopath release statute, RCW 71.06.091, does not specify a means by which a person committed as a sexual psychopath can initiate proceedings to determine that he is safe to be at large, such a right nevertheless exists.”
State v. Edwards, 589 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “(h) If in the opinion of the Sexual Psychopathy Program staff the defendant successfully completes that program, then at the time the defendant is returned to court for hearing pursuant to RCW 71.06.091, the prosecutor will recommend termination of commitment and the granting of…”
State v. Carlow, 723 P.2d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 71.06.091; State v. Daniels, 31 Wn. App.”
In Re Jacobson, 86 P.3d 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “2d 1196 (1982) (concluding that while dispositional hearings under the sexual psychopathy statute (RCW 71.06.091) are not explicitly exempted, they fall within the rationale of ER 1101(c)).”
State v. Jacobson, 120 Wash. App. 770 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “2d 1196 (1982) (concluding that while dispositional hearings under the sexual psychopathy statute (RCW 71.06.091) are not explicitly exempted, they fall within the rationale of ER 1101(c)).”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.