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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf
Full Text
574 charsthe trial court for applying the literal language of the rule but not fault the rule.
For that reason, I respectfully concur in the vast bulk of the majority's analysis
and in its conclusion. I disagree, however, with its assertion that CrR 3 .2(b )(4)-
the statutory subsection that formed the basis for the unconstitutional bail order-
survives constitutional scrutiny.
2
State v. Barton (Peter Richard), No. 89390-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence)
JJ~_jl\_(W, 1--
~~/e,c;.
~~~lez7f).
3