9A.16.040  <<  9A.16.045 >>   9A.16.050

Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by peace officerReimbursement of defendant for costsSpecial verdict (as amended by 2018 c 10).

*** CHANGE IN 2019 *** (SEE 1064-S.SL) ***
(1) When a peace officer who is charged with a crime is found not guilty or charges are dismissed by reason of justifiable homicide or use of deadly force under RCW 9A.16.040, or by reason of self-defense, for actions taken while on duty or otherwise within the scope of his or her authority as a peace officer, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action.
(2) If the trier of fact makes a determination of justifiable homicide, justifiable use of deadly force, or self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.
(3) Whenever the issue of justifiable homicide, justifiable use of deadly force, or self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, or whenever charges against a peace officer are dismissed based on the merits, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) of this section.
(4) Whenever the issue of justifiable homicide, justifiable use of deadly force, or self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:
 
answer yes or no
 
1.
Was the defendant on duty or otherwise acting within the scope of his or her authority as a peace officer?
. . . . .
 
2.
Was the finding of not guilty based upon justifiable homicide, justifiable use of deadly force, or self-defense?
. . . . .
(5) Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or otherwise where the charge was dismissed prior to trial, or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

NOTES:

Reviser's note: The Washington supreme court ruled in Eyman v. Wyman, 191 Wn.2d 581, 424 P.3d 1183 (2018) that 2018 c 10 is void.
Rule making2018 c 10; 2018 c 11 (Initiative Measure No. 940); 2019 c 1 (Initiative Measure No. 940): See note following RCW 43.101.455.
Contingent effective date2018 c 10: See note following RCW 9A.16.040.
Site Contents
Selected content listed in alphabetical order under each group