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

1,185 chars

constitutional provision regarding bail by sufficient sureties. Br. ofResp't at 11-12

(citing People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill. 2d 623, 217 N.E.2d 803, 805-06

(1966)). The defendant in Gendron attempted to execute a bond in the amount of

$5,000 through a commercial surety, but the bond was refused by the court because

no cash, stocks, or bonds for real estate were deposited to secure the bond as required

by an Illinois statute. Id. at 805.

The Gendron court found no constitutional infirmity in this scenario. It

reasoned that a bond with sufficient sureties is "premised on the assumption that

economic loss to the accused, his family or friends, will assure his appearance for

trial." Id. But, lamented the court, in actual practice a commercial surety often took

on the burden for a fee, which the defendant lost whether he appeared or not.

"Hence, the economic loss deterrent loses force when an accused is admitted to bail

with professional sureties, and the purpose of admitting persons to bail is frustrated."

Id. The court explained:

-11-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0