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

1,750 chars

Under CrR 3.2(b)(4), it appears the defendant must stand in his own shoes.

The history of CrR 3 .2 supports our determination that subsection (b)(4) does

not itself contemplate a surety arrangement. Adoption of the rule followed a national

trend to limit the role of commercial bail bondsmen, who frequently charged a 10

percent "'premium'" on bail, which the defendant forfeited regardless of whether he

appeared. Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 359-60, 92 S. Ct. 479, 30 L. Ed. 2d 502

(1971) (interpreting similarly worded Illinois statute). The drafters of CrR 3.2

explained that the Bail Reform Act of1966, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3146-3152, was "the major

source of the wording" of the rule. CRIMINAL RULES TASK FORCE TO WASH.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL, WASHINGTON PROPOSED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 22

(1971). "The purpose of the rule," explained the drafters, "is to make money bail

the trial court's last resort in setting conditions for ensuring the accused's appearance

at trial." Id.

This history of the rule suggests that the drafters contemplated subsection

(b)(4) would function separately from the surety arrangement addressed in

subsection (b )(5). The distinction was important at the time the rule was drafted

because the bail bondsmen system had grown into "full and odorous bloom." Schlib,

404 U.S. at 359. But now, using a commercial bail bondsman is often less expensive

than paying a deposit to the court. 9 Also of note is the fact that the federal

9 We note that the Schilb Court was of the opinion that the Bail Reform Act of 1966
was not directed against professional bail bondsmen. 404 U.S. at 371.

-20-
             
State v. Barton (Peter Richard), 89390-0