4 Wn. App. 184, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ROBERT WAYNE WILLIS, Appellant

[No. 406-1. Division One-Panel 2. Court of Appeals      February 1, 1971.]

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ROBERT WAYNE WILLIS, Appellant.

[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. Reversed and remanded.

Prosecution for reckless driving. Defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence.

Stanley L. Conroy and Richard N. Pratt, for appellant.

Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney, and Roy N. Howson, Deputy, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

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.

 Feb. 1971]          MALLEN v. MALLEN               185 
4 Wn. App. 185, 480 P.2d 219

[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.