The bill adds a new section to chapter 38.38 RCW that enumerates specific rights for victims of offenses under that chapter. Those rights include protection from the accused, notice of certain proceedings, generally not being excluded from public proceedings except in limited circumstances, the right to be heard at certain proceedings, the right to confer with state counsel, entitlement to restitution if applicable, proceedings free from unreasonable delay, timely notice of pleas or similar agreements with a limited exception when notice would jeopardize an investigation or another person’s privacy, and treatment with fairness, dignity, and privacy. The section also prescribes procedures for requests to interview victims: when state counsel notifies defense counsel of an alleged victim the state intends to call, defense counsel must request interviews through the victim’s counsel (if any), and if the victim requests, interviews by defense counsel must occur only in the presence of state counsel or the victim’s counsel or a victim advocate. Legally, the change is a procedural rights statute for victims rather than the creation of a new crime or a change in criminal penalties. The new section expressly limits its own legal effect by stating it does not authorize a private cause of action for damages, does not create state liability for breaches, and does not impair prosecutorial or other discretion under RCW 38.38.308 and 38.38.324. The bill references the Washington Military Department and the Washington National Guard (air and army), roles for counsel for the state, counsel for the accused, counsel for the victim, victim advocates, the military judge and investigating officer for exclusion determinations, and service clemency and parole board proceedings. The bill was prefiled on 01/07/2026 and read for the first time on 01/12/2026. Important details are not included in the extracted facts: the precise placement or section number within chapter 38.38 RCW is not specified, no effective date or enforcement mechanism or penalties are provided, the full texts of the referenced RCWs are not included, and there is a noted minor textual irregularity in one subsection.

If enacted, the bill would make people harmed by offenses under the state military code explicitly entitled to more notice, protection, and participation in military justice and related proceedings, and it would change how defense lawyers arrange interviews with those victims by requiring those requests to go through victim counsel and, if the victim asks, to be conducted only with state counsel, victim counsel, or a victim advocate present. Practically, victims would likely see quicker and clearer access to hearings, chances to be heard, and greater privacy protections, but the law also says it does not create a private right to sue or make the state financially liable for violations, so enforcement would be limited to procedure rather than damages. The Washington Military Department and the Washington National Guard would be the most affected organizations: they would need to change procedures, inform and train military judges, commanders, and counsel, and likely rely more on victim advocates or victim counsel to handle notifications and interview coordination, which could create modest administrative costs without any appropriation in the bill. Defense counsel would lose some direct access options to victims and must follow new notice and interview steps, while victims would gain clearer procedural protections; however, key details about timing, enforcement, and how this fits with the cited statutes are not specified in the extracted text, leaving some uncertainty about implementation and practical remedies for breaches.