Los Angeles Bail Bonds …just another day

In Allegheny Casualty Agent v. Walker, 2009 WL 4757362 (Tex.App. – Ft. Worth December 10, 2009) the County Sheriff posted a list of all licensed bail agents for the County (as required by statute) and next to it a list of criminal defense attorneys active in the County. Under Texas law, a criminal defense attorney can act as the bail bond surety for his or her client. A law enforcement officer, however, cannot recommend any bail bond surety. The plaintiff agent argued that the list of criminal defense attorneys violated the law by recommending particular sureties, i.e., the lawyers on the list. The Court held that the list of attorneys did not “recommend a particular bail bond surety to another person” in violation of the statute and affirmed summary judgment for the Sheriff.

In State v. Rodriguez, 2009 WL 4796587 (Minn.App. December 15, 2009) the defendant initially gave a false name to authorities, but his correct name was revealed in court before the bond was written. He failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. The surety moved for relief from the forfeiture because the bond was a contract and void because of a mutual mistake of fact as to the defendant’s true identity. At the time the contract was made, however, the State was aware of the defendant’s true identity even though the court file and other papers still used his alias. The surety’s unilateral mistake could not be a basis for avoiding the bond. The Court also rejected the surety’s argument that the bond should have been discharged because of its good faith efforts to recover the defendant. The Court noted that the trial court had discretion and that its discretion would be applied in light of the factors set forth in Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 60 N.W.2d 40 (1953). The Court reviewed each factor and thought that they did not justify discharge of the bond. The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the surety’s motion.

In State v. Thompson, 2009 WL 4824696 (La.App. December 16, 2009) the defendant absconded during trial and the bond was forfeited. The surety alleged that it recovered him a few days later and attempted to surrender him to the sheriff, but the sheriff refused to detain him. The only evidence offered in support of the allegation, however, was a copy of a document entitled “Refusal of Surrender of Criminal Defendant.” The State disputed the authenticity of the document and objected to its admission into evidence. No witness authenticated the document, and the court thought it was hearsay and sustained the objection. There was then no evidence that the surety attempted to surrender the defendant, so the court denied the surety’s motion. Apparently similar documents had been accepted in the past, but the State had not objected. Here there was an objection. The Court of Appeals affirmed because it agreed that the document was inadmissible hearsay.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm and is filed under Bail Laws. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.