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

1,728 chars

7
The State seems to argue that CrR 3 .2(b)(4) is unique in a different respect because
it allows courts to impose a financial incentive to follow conditions of release other than
appearance. See, e.g., Br. ofResp't at 32. This argument is hard to square with the text of
CrR 3.2. CrR 3.2(b)(4) is contained in the prong of CrR 3.2 dealing with measures to
secure a defendant's appearance. Conditions of release are addressed later in CrR 3.2(d).
The Snohomish County prosecutor's form dealing with orders on release does not clearly
distinguish these inquiries. CP at 11. This is not to fault the form, but to explain that our
inquiry reads CrR 3.2(b)(4) in the context in which it appears.

-17-
Statev. Barton
(Peter

Richard), 89390-0

Barton explains that he is not challenging the constitutionality of the rule.

Pet'r's Reply Br. at 16-17. He argues that the phrase "other security" in the rule can

be read to mean a surety bond for 10 percent of the bail amount and an unsecured

bond for the remaining 90 percent of the bail amount. Pet'r' s Reply Br. at 17. He

maintains that the October 18, 2012 order is more restrictive than CrR 3.2(b)(4)

because it requires he deposit 10 percent of the bond amount in cash or property
without allowing a surety bond. See, e.g., Pet'r's Opening Br. at 3, 23-26. The

court's description of its order seems to support Barton's characterization insofar as

it required "$50,000 in cash or other security, but that is in addition to the bond of

$500,000." VRP (Sept. 7, 2012) at 28. And the court's August 15, 2012 order was

accomplished by interlineating the standard court form to specifically exclude the