Opinion
No. 406-1.
February 1, 1971.
[1] Criminal Law — Witnesses — Impeachment — Prior Convictions — Forfeiture of Bail. A forfeiture of bail is not an admission of guilt nor the equivalent of a conviction for the purposes of RCW 5.60.040 and 10.52.030, which permit the showing of prior convictions on the issue of a witness' credibility. Forfeiture of bail may not be considered on the issue of credibility in a criminal prosecution whether or not it is a jury trial. [See 58 Am. Jur., Witnesses (1st ed. § 735).]
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 51602, Lawrence Leahy, J., entered January 16, 1970.
Stanley L. Conroy and Richard N. Pratt, for appellant.
Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney, and Roy N. Howson, Deputy, for respondent.
Reversed and remanded.
Prosecution for reckless driving. Defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence.
Robert Willis was charged with reckless driving. His trial, without a jury, resulted in a finding of guilt.
One question is presented. In a criminal trial, without jury, may arrests for other offenses disposed of by forfeiture of bail be considered in judging a defendant's credibility? The trial judge believed that such evidence should be considered. [1] We disagree. Only convictions of other crimes may be considered as affecting a criminal defendant's credibility. RCW 5.60.040; RCW 10.52.030; State v. McVeigh, 35 Wn.2d 493, 214 P.2d 165 (1950). A decision to forfeit bail is not tantamount to an admission of guilt.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.