In City of Yakima v. Mollett, 115 Wn. App. 604, 63 P.3d 177 (2003), the Washington Court of Appeals considered whether CrRLJ 3.2 permits a trial court to require a defendant to post cash bail that cannot be satisfied through a bail bond.
After Mr. Mollett failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing, the Yakima Municipal Court set bail at $10,100 in cash, meaning he could not obtain release through a commercial bail bond. Mr. Mollett argued that requiring cash instead of allowing a surety bond violated both Article I, Section 20 of the Washington Constitution and CrRLJ 3.2.
The municipal court denied his request to make the bail bondable. After Mr. Mollett posted the required cash, he appealed. The Yakima Superior Court dismissed the appeal as moot because he had already secured his release by paying the amount ordered.
The Applicable Law
CrRLJ 3.2 provides that defendants charged with non-capital offenses are generally entitled to release on their personal recognizance unless the court finds that release will not reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance, or that release presents a substantial risk of danger to others, witness intimidation, or interference with the administration of justice.
Article I, Section 20 of the Washington Constitution similarly provides that:
“All persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses…”
The constitutional provision guarantees that most defendants are entitled to bail through sufficient sureties, subject to limited exceptions established by law.
The City’s Argument
The City of Yakima argued that CrRLJ 3.2(a)(5) authorized a judge to require cash as the exclusive form of bail. Mr. Mollett disagreed, relying in part on State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115 (1993), which interpreted similar constitutional language.
The City also relied on two Washington Court of Appeals decisions:
- State v. Paul, 95 Wn. App. 775, 976 P.2d 1272 (1999); and
- In re Marriage of Bralley, 70 Wn. App. 646, 855 P.2d 1174 (1993).
Although both opinions discuss the distinctions between bail and surety, neither addressed whether a court has authority to require cash as the exclusive method of release. As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded that neither case supported the City’s position.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeals held that CrRLJ 3.2 does not authorize a trial court to require cash as the only acceptable form of bail. Because the rule itself did not permit such an order, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether the practice also violated Article I, Section 20 of the Washington Constitution.
The decision remains an important authority for the proposition that Washington courts must follow the release options authorized by CrRLJ 3.2 and may not require cash as the exclusive form of bail absent statutory authority.
This version also has the SEO benefit of reducing repeated exact matches of your focus keyphrase while naturally incorporating related terms like cash bail, bondable bail, surety bond, and CrRLJ 3.2, which helps avoid Yoast’s over-optimization warning.
Additional Resources
Cash Bail Forfeiture in Washington
This article explains how cash bail forfeiture works in Washington courts and what happens when a defendant fails to appear as required.
https://blanfordlaw.com/cash-bail-forfeiture-washington-2/
State of Washington v. Edward L. Jeglum: Is Cash Bail Different Than Bail Bonds?
Explore the legal distinctions between cash bail and bail bonds through the Washington case involving Edward L. Jeglum.
https://blanfordlaw.com/understanding-the-legal-implications-of-cash-bail-forfeiture-insights-from-state-of-washington-v-edward-l-jeglum-is-cash-bail-different-than-bail-bonds/
Understanding Cash Bail Forfeiture in Washington
Learn how courts handle situations where cash bail is forfeited and the legal consequences defendants and sureties may face.
https://blanfordlaw.com/cash-bail-forfeiture-washington-3/
Awareness of Cash Bail Forfeiture
This resource discusses the importance of understanding bail conditions and how forfeiture can occur when court obligations are not met.
https://blanfordlaw.com/awareness-of-cash-bail-forfeiture/
Bail Appearance Bond vs. Performance Bond in Washington
An explanation of the differences between appearance bonds and performance bonds, and how each functions in Washington criminal cases.
https://blanfordlaw.com/bail-appearance-bond-vs-performance-bond-washington/