Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.72.090 (2026)

Committal of witness—Detention of documents

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever it shall appear probable to a judge, magistrate, or other officer lawfully authorized to conduct any hearing, proceeding or investigation, that a person who has testified before such judge, magistrate, or officer has committed perjury in any testimony so given, or offered any false evidence, he or she may, by order or process for that purpose, immediately commit such person to jail or take a recognizance for such person's appearance to answer such charge. In such case such judge, magistrate, or officer may detain any book, paper, document, record or other instrument produced before him or her or direct it to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney.
[ 1987 c 202 s 141; 1909 c 249 s 107; RRS s 2359.]

Notes:

Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: State v. Houf, 841 P.2d 42 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Houf, 841 P.2d 42 (Wash. 1992). “Additionally, RCW 9.72.090 provides a mechanism for a judge to immediately jail a witness, or demand a witness' appearance, in order to answer to a charge of perjury whenever it appears probable to that judge that perjury has been committed.”
Karen Koehler & Edward Moore, Apps. v. The City Of Seattle, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “Koehler and Moore, counsel for Lyles’s estate, filed a motion under RCW 9.72.090, alleging that one of the officers had committed perjury during a deposition.”
Richard Randall v. Thomas Koch (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” Specifically, Randall appeared to argue that the trial court should, under RCW 9.72.090, refer Koch to the State for a perjury charge or send him to jail for perjury.”
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.