State v. Barton

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that article I, section 20 of the Washington Constitution guarantees a bailable defendant the option to secure bail through a sufficient surety, distinct from depositing cash or other property with the court. The court concluded that the trial court’s order requiring a $50,000 deposit in cash or other security, while excluding a surety arrangement, violated that constitutional guarantee. It vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Article I, section 20 of the Washington Constitution guarantees a defendant charged with a bailable offense the option to make bail through a sufficient surety arrangement. A surety is a third-party promise or obligation and is distinct from cash or property deposited directly with the court.
2. The trial court's October 18, 2012 order violated article I, section 20 because it required a 10 percent cash-or-other-security deposit without allowing Barton to execute a bond with sufficient solvent sureties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether article I, section 20 of the Washington Constitution guarantees a bailable criminal defendant the option to secure bail through a third-party surety arrangement, as distinct from depositing cash or property with the court.
2. Whether the trial court's order requiring a 10 percent cash-or-other-security deposit, without permitting a surety bond, violated article I, section 20 and CrR 3.2.

Disposition

vacated