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

1,372 chars

execution of a bond with "sufficient sureties." CP at 11 (Order on Release/Det. of

Def. (Aug. 15, 2012)). Indeed, the standard court form does not appear to

incorporate the language of CrR 3.2(b)(4) at all, but rather the language of CrR

3.2(b)(5), which allows execution of a bond with sufficient solvent sureties or the

deposit of cash in lieu thereof. See id. Here, the trial court accomplished its order

by striking the language tracking CrR 3.2(b)(5) and writing in its own language

tracking CrR 3.2(b)(4); it later modified the order to be sure that the language did
track CrR 3.2(b)(4). But its modification cut out the (b)(5) option under CrR 3.2. It

appears that Barton is therefore correct that the trial court's order in fact excluded

execution of a bond via "sufficient sureties."

-18-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

Accepting Barton's argument that the October 18, 2012 order restricts his

access to a surety, we disagree that CrR 3.2(b)(4) can be read in isolation to allow a

surety under the provision of "other security." The language of CrR 3.2(b)(4)

contemplates that the relationship securing the defendant's appearance will be

between the defendant and the court; there is no third-party surety involved. 8 The

trial court understood this, explaining that