Legal Opinion

State v. Barton

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2014No. 89390-0PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 This case centers on article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution and its mandate that criminal defendants “shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.” Peter Barton’s bail was set at $500,000; invoking Criminal Rule (CrR) 3.2(b)(4), the trial court ordered that Barton post 10 percent of that amount with the registry of the court in cash or other security. Barton claims this order violates his guaranty to bail by sufficient sureties.

Stephens, J.

¶2 We hold that article I, section 20 means a defendant must be allowed the option to secure bail via a surety, as distinct from cash…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Schilb v. KuebelSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Westerman v. CaryWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Fragoso v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  4. Smith v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State Of Washington v. Alexander J. HuckinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  2. Trujillo v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2016
  3. State Of Washington, V Quran D. A. IngramCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  4. Burroughs v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2023
  5. German Vazquez v. Derek Sanders, et al.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2026

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API