Opinion ID: 2466701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent of CrRLJ 3.2 and CrR 3.2

Text: ¶ 19 Harris was sentenced in a court of limited jurisdiction and released pending sentencing pursuant to CrRLJ 3.2. We examine CrR 3.2, the rule for superior courts, because CrRLJ 3.2 is the nearly identical rule for district courts. CrR 3.2 does not describe bail or other conditions of pretrial release as punitive measures. The rule creates a presumption that a court will release a defendant on personal recognizance after his preliminary hearing or appearance. [8] CrR 3.2(a). If the court determines that personal recognizance will not assure the defendant's appearance at future court proceedings or if there is a likely danger the defendant will commit a violent crime, seek to intimidate witnesses, or otherwise unlawfully interfere with the administration of justice, then the court will impose bail or conditions of release. CrR 3.2(a)(1)-(2). CrR 3.2(b) requires the court to impose the least restrictive conditions necessary, including: (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; .... (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. The language of CrR 3.2 does not indicate these pretrial release conditions are punitive. ¶ 20 The history of CrR 3.2, a rule originally drafted to overhaul the monetary bail system, confirms that conditions of pretrial release were not intended to be punitive. Rather, comments to the original rule demonstrate that the drafters intended pretrial release to alleviate some of the burdens imposed upon an accused individual awaiting trial in jail. The comments observe that a defendant in pretrial detention is severely handicapped in his defense preparation and is often unable to retain his job and support his family, and is made to suffer the public stigma of incarceration even though he may later be found not guilty. CRIMINAL RULES TASK FORCE, WASHINGTON PROPOSED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 3.2, cmt. at 22 (West Publ'g Co.1971). CrR 3.2 was meant to alleviate these burdens. ¶ 21 As a condition of pretrial or presentencing release, EHM addresses these concerns and furthers the intent of the original pretrial release rule because a defendant on EHM may visit his attorney and continue to go to a job. [9] State v. Perrett, 86 Wash.App. 312, 318-19, 936 P.2d 426 (1997). A 2002 amendment to CrR 3.2 added electronic monitoring as a possible condition of pretrial release. The minority and justice commission proposed the amendments to address reports that court rules governing pretrial release may discriminate against persons who are economically disadvantaged. Proposed amendment to CrR 3.2, 145 Wash.2d Proposed-67 (Official Advance Sheet No. 4, Jan. 8, 2002). The purpose of the amendment's restructuring of CrR 3.2 (and its counterpart CrRLJ 3.2) was to separate out the three broad issues a judge is directed to consider for pretrial release; that is, whether the accused is likely to appear at future hearings, whether there is a likely danger that the accused will commit a violent crime, and whether the accused will seek to intimidate witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. Id. at Proposed-68. These comments demonstrate that the purpose of pretrial release conditions, including EHM, is not punishment. [10]