Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.18.080 (2025)

Offender a competent witness

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person offending against any of the provisions of law relating to bribery or corruption shall be a competent witness against another so offending and shall not be excused from giving testimony tending to criminate himself or herself.
[ 2011 c 336 s 295; 1909 c 249 s 78; RRS s 2330. Cf. 1907 c 60 ss 1, 2; RRS ss 2149, 2150.]

Notes:

Bribery and corruption: Chapter 9A.68 RCW.
Incriminating testimony not to be used: RCW 10.52.090.
Rights of accused persons: State Constitution Art. 1 s 9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1969–1975 · leading case: State v. Carroll, 515 P.2d 1299 (Wash. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carroll, 515 P.2d 1299 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 32× “All joined in a motion to dismiss the indictments upon the basis that, pursuant to RCW 9.18.080 and RCW 10.52.090, they were respectively afforded statutory immunity from prosecution as a result of their appearance and testimony before the grand jury concerning the offenses…”
State v. Smith, 530 P.2d 354 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “Subsequently defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that: Prosecution of this defendant for bribery is specially prohibited by Washington Laws 1909 Chapter 249, Section 39 (RCW 10.”
State v. Johnson, 462 P.2d 933 (Wash. 1969). “050) , bribery (RCW 9.18.080), duelling (RCW 9.30.050) , and gambling (RCW 9.”
State v. Solomon, 487 P.2d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “050; RCW 9.18.080; RCW 9.30.050; RCW 9.47.130.”
State v. Morgison, 486 P.2d 1115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “The first assignment of error relates to the application of RCW 9.18.080 and RCW 10.52.090, which relate to immunity from prosecution of parties to bribery who testify.”
State v. Harville, 518 P.2d 730 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 5× “In Carroll , the court held transactional immunity granted under RCW 9.18.080 and RCW 10.52.090 is self-executing when the party is subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury and that it is not necessary that the witness invoke his privilege against self-incrimination before…”
State v. Morton, 544 P.2d 50 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 7× “” The State’s contention on appeal is that a witness appearing before an inquiry judge as a “principal”—a potential defendant—rather than as one testifying against another is not entitled to immunity from prosecution conferred by RCW 9.18.080 and RCW 10.52.090. RCW 9.18.”
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.