Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.73
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.040 (2026)

Bail pending appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In all criminal actions, except capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great, upon an appeal being taken from a judgment of conviction, the court in which the judgment was rendered, or a judge thereof, must, by an order entered in the journal or filed with the clerk, fix and determine the amount of bail to be required of the appellant; and the appellant shall be committed until a bond to the state of Washington in the sum so fixed be executed on his or her behalf by at least two sureties possessing the qualifications required for sureties on appeal bonds, such bond to be conditioned that the appellant shall appear whenever required, and stand to and abide by the judgment or orders of the appellate court, and any judgment and order of the superior court that may be rendered or made in pursuance thereof. If the appellant be already at large on bail, his or her sureties shall be liable to the amount of their bond, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as if they had executed the bond prescribed by this section; but the court may by order require a new bond in a larger amount or with new sureties, and may commit the appellant until the order be complied with.
[ 2010 c 8 s 1060; 1999 c 143 s 48; 1893 c 61 s 31; RRS s 1747.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: State v. Smith, 527 P.2d 674 (Wash. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 527 P.2d 674 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 4× “[1] However, the legislature has provided in RCW 10.73.040 that: In all criminal actions, except capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great, upon an appeal being taken from a judgment of conviction, the court in which the judgment was rendered,…”
State v. Louie, 413 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 2× “"In case the defendant has been convicted of a felony, and has been unable to furnish the bail bond required by RCW 10.73.040 pending the appeal, the time during which he remains in the jail of the county from which the appeal is taken shall be deducted from the term for which…”
State v. Hunter, 669 P.2d 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The defendant cites RCW 10.73.040 which states in part that In all criminal actions, except capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great, upon an appeal being taken from a judgment of conviction, the *719 court in which the judgment was rendered,…”
In Re Estes v. Hopp, 438 P.2d 205 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 2× “1, § 20, and under RCW 10.73.040. Petitioner further contends that, if we determine that a minor, accused of violating a law and therefore subject to incarceration in a state institution, is to be given the same procedural rights as an adult accused of a similar crime, then we…”
State v. Haga, 504 P.2d 787 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 3× “*706 The right to bail pending appeal is governed by RCW 10.73.040, which provides: In all criminal actions, except capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great, upon an appeal being taken from a judgment of conviction, the court in which the…”
State v. Hunt, 886 P.2d 1170 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “Relying on RCW 10.73.040, Hunt contends that he was permitted to remain free on bond until he received official notice setting forth a date and time for him to appear.”
State v. Templeton, 27 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The rule conflicted with RCW 10.73.040, which authorized bail for all criminal actions except "capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great.”
State v. Haga, 536 P.2d 648 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “The court concluded that RCW 10.73.040, 3 which governs the right to bail pending appeal, requires the trial court, following a first-degree murder conviction, to determine whether “the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great” for the purpose of deciding whether the…”
State v. Templeton, 107 Wash. App. 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The rule conflicted with RCW 10.73.040, which authorized bail for all criminal actions except “capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great.”
State of Washington v. A.M.W., 545 P.3d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “2d 498 (1974), the Washington Supreme Court faced a conflict between RCW 10.73.040 and CrR 3.2(h). The statute directed the superior court to determine an amount of bail required to release one convicted of a crime who filed an appeal.”
State Of Washington, V Cynthia Sue Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “040 addresses bail pending appeal and provides in part, In all criminal actions, except capital cases in which the proof of guilt is clear or the presumption great, upon an appeal being taken from a judgment of conviction, the court in which the judgment was rendered, or a judge…”
In re James for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 346 P.2d 314 (Wash. 1959). “Since March 31, 1959, James has been held in the King county jail—not under said warrant of commitment, but as one appealing from a judgment of conviction and unable to furnish bail (see RCW 10.73.040). The appeal has been at all times since March 31, 1959, and is now pending in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.