Proposed Rules Archives
3.2 - Release of Accused
GR 9 COVER SHEET
Suggested Amendment to
WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULES:
CRIMINAL RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION
Amend CrRLJ 3.2: Release of Accused
Submitted by the District & Municipal Courts Judges Association
A. Name of Proponent: District & Municipal Courts Judges Association
B. Spokesperson: Judge David Steiner, President
DMCJA
C. Purpose: CrRLJ 3.2 governs issues regarding release of accused persons in Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. In State v. Barton, 181 Wn.2d 148, 150, 331 P.3d 50 (2014), the Supreme Court held that a defendant must be allowed the option to secure bail via a surety and called into question the validity of CrR 3.2(b)(4). The DMCJA Rules Committee reviewed the issue at that time and recommended that the DMCJA not request a rule amendment, as the case did not invalidate that portion of the CLJ rule.
The Superior Court Judges’ Association (SCJA) did decide to request a rule amendment. The DMCJA Board took no position on the proposed rule amendment, but determined that if the Supreme Court approved the amendment for the CrR 3.2, that CrRLJ 3.2 should also be amended. Subsequently, the Supreme Court approved the SCJA-proposed rule amendment, effective September 1, 2015. The DMCJA therefore requests that CrRLJ 3.2(b)(4) be deleted to parallel the rules of the superior courts and to reflect the holding in State v. Barton.
CrRLJ 3.2(b), Showing of Likely Failure to Appear—Least Restrictive Conditions of Release, provides:
(b) Showing of Likely Failure to Appear—Least Restrictive Conditions of Release. If the court determines that the accused is not likely to appear if released on personal recognizance, the court shall impose the least restrictive of the following conditions that will reasonably assure that the accused will be present for later hearings, or, if no single condition gives that assurance, any combination of the following conditions:
(1) Place the accused in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise the accused;
(2) Place restrictions on the travel, association, or place of abode of the accused during the period of release;
(3) Require the execution of an unsecured bond in a specified amount;
(4) Require the execution of a bond in a specified amount and the deposit in the registry of the court in cash or other security as directed, of a sum not to exceed 10 percent of the amount of the bond, such deposit to be returned upon the performance of the conditions of release or forfeited for violation of any condition of release;
(5) Require the execution of a bond with sufficient solvent sureties or the deposit of cash in lieu thereof;
(6) Require the accused to return to custody during specified hours or to be placed on electronic monitoring, if available; or
(7) Impose any condition other than detention deemed reasonably necessary to assure appearance as required.
Subsection (b)(4) allows for a bail arrangement that is disallowed by Barton. As this subsection has now been deleted from CrR 3.2, the DMCJA requests that subsection (b)(4) also be deleted from CrRLJ 3.2. Thus, the following amendment is recommended [redline]:
(b) Showing of Likely Failure to Appear—Least Restrictive Conditions of Release. If the court determines that the accused is not likely to appear if released on personal recognizance, the court shall impose the least restrictive of the following conditions that will reasonably assure that the accused will be present for later hearings, or, if no single condition gives that assurance, any combination of the following conditions:
(1) Place the accused in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise the accused;
(2) Place restrictions on the travel, association, or place of abode of the accused during the period of release;
(3) Require the execution of an unsecured bond in a specified amount;
(4) Require the execution of a bond in a specified amount and the deposit in the registry of the court in cash or other security as directed, of a sum not to exceed 10 percent of the amount of the bond, such deposit to be returned upon the performance of the conditions of release or forfeited for violation of any condition of release;
(5) Require the execution of a bond with sufficient solvent sureties or the deposit of cash in lieu thereof;
(65) Require the accused to return to custody during specified hours or to be placed on electronic monitoring, if available; or
(76) Impose any condition other than detention deemed reasonably necessary to assure appearance as required.
As amended, the rule would appear:
(b) Showing of Likely Failure to Appear—Least Restrictive Conditions of Release. If the court determines that the accused is not likely to appear if released on personal recognizance, the court shall impose the least restrictive of the following conditions that will reasonably assure that the accused will be present for later hearings, or, if no single condition gives that assurance, any combination of the following conditions:
(1) Place the accused in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise the accused;
(2) Place restrictions on the travel, association, or place of abode of the accused during the period of release;
(3) Require the execution of an unsecured bond in a specified amount;
(4) Require the execution of a bond with sufficient solvent sureties or the deposit of cash in lieu thereof;
(5) Require the accused to return to custody during specified hours or to be placed on electronic monitoring, if available; or
(6) Impose any condition other than detention deemed reasonably necessary to assure appearance as required.
This amendment removes the subsection that was problematic in Barton, and allows the trial court rules to remain congruent. As the amendment to CrR 3.2 became effective September 1, 2015, the DMCJA requests that this proposed amendment be considered as expeditiously as possible.
D. Hearing: A hearing is not requested.
E. Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is requested as it is desirable to have the trial court rules be congruent and the Supreme Court’s decision to amend CrR 3.2 calls the validity of CrRLJ 3.2(b)(4) further into question. |
