Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,725 chars
require, consistent with the language of CrR 3 .4(b)(4), that Barton deposit 10 percent

of the bond amount in cash or other security with the registry of the court. CP at 13.

This case mainly concerns the meaning of article I, section 20 of the

Washington State Constitution. In order to determine if the bail order here is proper,

we must first understand the import of the phrase "bailable by sufficient sureties."

Because the federal constitution contains no clause requiring that defendants be

bailable by sufficient sureties, this is purely a question of state constitutional law.

1. Article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees a
criminal defendant who is bailable the opportunity to make bail via a surety

The meaning of the phrase "bailable by sufficient sureties" presents a question

of first impression. 3 "When interpreting a constitutional provision, we seek to

ascertain and give effect to the manifest purpose for which it was adopted."

Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 288, 892 P.2d 1067 (1994). In doing so, we

look first to the plain language of the text "and will accord it its reasonable

3
City ofYakima v. Mollett, 115 Wn. App. 604, 605, 63 P.3d 177 (2003), cited by
both parties, considered the propriety of an order that limited a defendant's bail to '"cash
only'" under CrR 3.2(b)(5). The court concluded that the language of the criminal court
rule required a judge to allow a defendant to elect between a bond or cash in lieu thereof
to post bail, but could not order one option to the exclusion of the other. !d. at 609-10. It
did not reach the question of whether the order would have been constitutionally
permissible under article I, section 20. !d. at 611.