Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bail Forfeiture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State urges court to review bail ruling in State v. Jared Price; judge requests more facts
Summary
At a Dec. 10 motion hearing, the state asked the court to accept discretionary review of a trial judge’s bail ruling in State v. Jared Price, arguing the trial court erred by treating the right to bail as absolute; the court said it will request additional information and briefing after the holidays.
At a Dec. 10 motion hearing in Other Court, the state asked the court to accept discretionary review of a trial judge’s bail ruling in State v. Jared Price, arguing the trial court had treated the Washington Constitution’s right to bail as absolute.
"The state is asking the court to accept review under 2 standards under wrap 2.3 b," the presenter told the court, and acknowledged mootness had been addressed in the state's brief. The presenter updated the court that Price had been tried and "has been sentenced," saying his highest conviction was unlawful imprisonment in a domestic violence matter and that "he has been sentenced to 12 months in custody." The presenter said they were unsure about credit-for-time-served and offered to verify that information.
The presiding judge pressed the presenter on ripeness and mootness, asking whether the issue would be "very academic" if Price was never actually released after the trial court's earlier comments about release. The judge asked whether competency findings had kept Price in custody and whether, after competency was resolved, he would have been released.
On the legal theory, the presenter told the court the trial judge erred by treating the bail right as absolute and argued that, based on Price's repeated violations of release conditions and affirmative misconduct (including contact with the victim and other offenses), a court may forfeit a defendant's right to bail. The presenter said Washington lacks direct on-point precedent and that the filing relied in part on cases from other jurisdictions to support the forfeiture theory.
The judge raised a separate line of inquiry about a case the parties discussed (referred to in argument as Claire/Clair), noting that prior authority may require a bail hearing within 48 hours after detention on a bench warrant but does not necessarily prescribe the outcome of that hearing. The presenter said Clare/Clair addresses the timing of a bail hearing rather than the question whether a court can determine at the hearing that the right to bail has been forfeited.
Rather than rule immediately, the judge said the matter appeared moot but would be taken under consideration. The judge told the presenter the court would issue a short ruling and requested additional information and brief supplemental argument after the holidays, with a stated expectation that the presenter could file the supplemental briefing in early January.
The court adjourned the 12/10/2025 commissioner motion docket.
