Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/893900.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,721 chars

Papers (CP) at 11 (Order on Release/Det. ofDef. (Aug. 15, 2012)). The judge's bail

order made headlines. Diana Hefley, Judge requires unusual bail in child rape case,

THE HERALDNET, Aug. 16, 2012, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120816/

NEWS01/708169921. Barton moved to strike the cash-only provision. At a hearing

held on September 7, 2012, the trial court explained that it had intended its August

15,2012 order to track the language ofCrR 3.2(b)(4). 1 Accordingly, the trial court

1
That subsection reads:
(b) ... If the court determines that the accused is not likely to appear
if released on personal recognizance, the court shall impose the least
restrictive of the following conditions that will reasonably assure that the
accused will be present for later hearings, or, if no single condition gives that
assurance, any combination of the following conditions:

(4) Require the execution of a bond in a specified amount and the
deposit in the registry of the court in cash or other security as directed, of a
sum not to exceed 10 percent of the amount of the bond, such deposit to be

-2-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

clarified that Barton could post 10 percent of the bail amount "'in cash or other

security."' VRP (Sept. 7, 2012) at 25, 27-28 (court quoting language of the rule).

However, the court did not enter its ruling that day because defense counsel asked

to brief the matter further. !d. at 26-27. On October 18, 2012, after additional

briefing, the court explained it was denying the defense motion to strike the cash-

only provision "as formulated." VRP (Oct. 18, 2012) at 26. The court reiterated its