Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 893900.pdf

the Pennsylvania Constitution. Two-thirds of state constitutions today-including

ours-borrow this phrasing. !d. at 350-52.

The Brooks court explained,

Because our bail system, with some modification, is largely patterned
after the English system, American courts-at least until the nineteenth
century-utilized the personal surety system. But, as modem society
evolved, it became increasingly difficult to fmd reliable persons known by
both the courts and the accused. As a result, the personal surety system
evolved into the commercial bondsman system that exists today.

!d. at 350 (citation omitted). As noted, the personal surety system utilized by

American courts "until the nineteenth century," id., contemplated that a surety made

a promise to secure the accused's appearance-not that he or she provided cash or

property for this purpose. Id. at 349. But see Fragoso v. Fell, 210 Ariz. 427, 111

P .3d 1027, 1032-33 (2005) (reasoning that "it is conceivable that bail by cash (or

-10-
 Statev. Barton
 (Peter
   
Richard), 89390-0     

personal property of value such as a horse or a firearm) might have been the only

practical form of bail in Arizona when our constitution was adopted").

The State argues that the phrase "bailable by sufficient sureties" means simply

sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance. Br. of Resp 't at 13. "Throughout

history the interest served by bail has always been to ensure the defendant appears

for trial or other hearings as required by the court. Thus, a surety that is not sufficient

to achieve that goal is not guaranteed by the State constitution." Id. The State cites

at least one other court that came to the same conclusion when interpreting its state