81 Hawai'i 324, State v. Camara

Decision Date15 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 18606,18606
Parties81 Hawai'i 324 STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia M. CAMARA, Defendant-Appellee, and Aloha Bail Bonds, Surety-Appellant.
CourtHawaii Supreme Court

Richard D. Gronna, on the briefs, Honolulu, for surety-appellant Aloha Bail Bonds.

James M. Anderson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai'i.

Before MOON, C.J., KLEIN, LEVINSON, and RAMIL, JJ., and WONG, Circuit Judge, in Place of NAKAYAMA, J., recused.

MOON, Chief Justice.

Surety-appellant Aloha Bail Bonds (Aloha or the surety) appeals from an order of the circuit court denying its motion to set aside a judgment of forfeiture of an appearance bond (motion to set aside). On appeal, Aloha contends that the circuit court erred in determining that a judgment of forfeiture may be set aside only if the movant shows good cause for the defendant's failure to appear in court when required. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the circuit court's interpretation of Hawai'i's forfeiture statute was unduly restrictive. We therefore vacate the circuit court's order denying Aloha's motion to set aside and remand this case for a rehearing on Aloha's motion to set aside consistent with the construction of Hawai'i's forfeiture scheme outlined in this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1993, defendant-appellee Patricia M. Camara (Camara or the principal) was charged with attempted murder in the first degree and using or threatening to use a firearm in the commission of a separate felony. On January 3, 1994, the circuit court set bail at $150,000, and, on January 12, 1994, Aloha posted a bail bond in the required amount.

Bail, or the giving of bail, is the signing of the recognizance by the defendant and the defendant's surety or sureties, conditioned for the appearance of the defendant at the session of a court of competent jurisdiction to be named in the condition, and to abide by the judgment of the court.

Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-1 (1993); see also United States v. Craft, 763 F.2d 402, 404 (11th Cir.1985) ("A bond is a contract between the surety and the government that[,] if the government releases the principal from custody, the surety will undertake that the principal will appear personally at any specified time and place.... It is thus the surety's responsibility to ensure the principal's attendance." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)).

The bail bond having been posted, and Camara having been released, Camara became obligated to make all scheduled court appearances, as provided in HRS § 804-7.4 (1993), which states in relevant part:

Any person released on bail, recognizance, supervised release or conditional release shall be released subject to the following conditions:

.... (2) The person shall appear for all court hearings unless notified by the person's attorney that the person's appearance is not required....

HRS § 804-7.4; see Pelekai v. White, 75 Haw. 357, 363 n. 3, 861 P.2d 1205, 1209 n. 3 (1993) ("The right to release before trial is conditioned upon the accused giving adequate assurance that he [or she] will stand trial and submit to judgment if found guilty." (Citations omitted.)).

Camara's case was called for trial on September 6, 1994, at which time jury selection was commenced. Camara appeared on the first day of trial. On the morning of September 8, 1994, Camara apparently failed to appear. 1

The court reconvened on September 8, 1994, at 1:30 p.m., at which time the following colloquy between the court and Camara's counsel occurred:

THE COURT: [Counsel, is there] anything new with respect to Mrs. Camara?

[COUNSEL]: [I] called her home ... and left three messages indicating what had gone on in court. This morning I had told her that the bond at present is forfeited, that she should show up this afternoon at 1:30. Tomorrow, if she doesn't, that tomorrow at 8:30 is her absolutely, positively last chance. That a bench warrant will issue for her arrest. That she will, in all probability, not be given bail at that time if she is picked up on that charge, and she will await trial at women[']s prison.

Mr. Chinen has contacted a--an investigator ... to see if he could find her.... I also contacted the bonds[person], Art Lee of [Aloha] Bail Bonds. [The bondsperson] sent someone out to Waianae[, where Camara resides,] and ... he had gone to [Camara's] house and she was not there. [Furthermore,] he was actually combing the streets of Waianae and Nanakuli looking for her there.

At present, Your Honor, those are the things that have been done in an attempt to bring Mrs. Camara to this courtroom.

The court stayed forfeiture of the bond on the condition that Camara appear in court at 8:30 a.m. the following morning.

The following morning, September 9, 1994, Camara again failed to appear in court as required. Defense counsel represented to the court that, despite the efforts of numerous people, including himself, an investigator/bounty hunter, and the police, Camara's location remained unknown. Specifically, defense counsel stated:

[T]he investigator who Mr. Chinen yesterday retained and called, could not find Mrs. Camara. My understanding also is that Mr. Amaral, who is evidently an investigator or bounty hunter ... with the bail bondsperson also could not find Mrs. Camara. I called ... both Mr. Chinen and the bonds[person] this morning, and there really is no other information other than that.

[M]rs. Camara has both my office number and my home number. There were no messages this morning when I arrived or left. I checked again just prior to court resuming this morning and there was no message from Mrs. Camara. I called her twice this last night and again this morning at 8:30; there was no response at the number that I have for her.

HRS § 804-17 (1993) provides that

[t]he names of all persons who have given bail or have become bound by recognizance to appear in any court, shall be called in open court on the day and at the time they are respectively bound to appear, and if they fail to appear promptly and respond thereto, their default shall be entered, and the entry shall be evidence of the breach of their appearance bond or recognizances.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, Camara, having failed to appear on September 8 and 9, breached the conditions of her appearance bond, thereby subjecting Aloha to the forfeiture of the bond. Aloha's bail bond included the following provision:

[T]he undersigned surety, or sureties, as surety, hereby undertake that the said defendant will appear and answer all charges mentioned in whatever court it may be prosecuted within the state of Hawai'i, and will at all times be amenable to the orders and process of the court, and, if convicted, will appear for judgment, and render self in execution thereof, or failing to perform either of these conditions will pay to the state of Hawai'i, as provided in sections 804-51 Hawai'i Revised Statutes the sum of ... $150,000....

(Emphases added.) The circuit court ordered the forfeiture of Camara's bail, and on September 14, 1994, entered a "Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond," which stated in pertinent part:

The ... cause having come regularly on for further Jury Trial, before the Honorable Tenney Z. Tongg ... on September 7, 2 8, and 9, and the Defendant having failed to appear or to be present on the said date, and the Court, upon motion of the State of Hawai[']i, having on said date ordered and declared the forfeiture of the bail bond filed and posted in this cause, executed by said Defendant, as principal, and American Bonding Company, through its agent and attorney-in-fact, Ida Peppers (Aloha Bail Bond), as surety, in the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ($150,000), ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the State of Hawai[']i does have and recovers from the principal and the surety above named, jointly and severally, 3 the sum of ... $150,000.00....

Following the entry of the judgment of forfeiture, Aloha notified the police that Camara might be in the Wai'anae or Nanakuli area. On September 15, 1994, the police arrested Camara in Wai'anae, and she was admitted to the Oahu Community Correctional Facility (OCCC) the following day. On September 20, 1994, Aloha filed a "bail bond surrender," pursuant to HRS § 804-14 (1993). 4

Thereafter, on September 23, 1994, Aloha submitted its motion to set aside, pursuant to HRS § 804-51 (1993), which provides that either the principal or surety may make an application to the trial court "showing good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment [of forfeiture]." In its motion, Aloha essentially maintained that, because Camara had been surrendered, good cause as to why execution should not issue had been established. Aloha's motion was heard on October 12, 1994. In ruling on the motion, the circuit court, commenting on what it believed constituted good cause, stated:

[I] agree ... that the main issue in this case is whether good cause has been shown to set aside the ... bond forfeiture, and I'm not satisfied that your argument that the bonding company made good faith efforts to locate Ms. Camara after she failed to appear in court for several days is the criteria in this case.

I think that the bond was forfeited for the defendant's non-appearance in court. This was the undertaking--this was the obligation that your bonding company undertook to insure that Ms. Camara would show up in court, so I think the good cause has to be shown in facts prior to her fleeing the--or appearing in court or facts, extenuating circumstances or good cause at the time that she did not appear in court as to why the forfeiture of the bond should be set aside.

This is an obligation that the bonding company undertook to insure that Ms. Camara showed up in court as ordered by the Court for trial. She failed to show up and the fact that your client went out to look for her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 cases
  • State v. White
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • March 10, 2006
    ...is a question of law reviewable de novo." State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i 1, 10, 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996) (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai`i 324, 329, 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i 8, 18, 904 P.2d 893, 903 (1995); State v. Higa, 79 Hawa......
  • State v. Klinge, No. 21237.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • February 4, 2000
    ...v. Kotis, 91 Hawai`i 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting Arceo, 84 Hawai`i at 10, 928 P.2d at 852 (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai`i 324, 329, 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations D. Motion for Mistrial "The denial of a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the tria......
  • Flor v. Holguin, No. 22641.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • May 30, 2000
    ...is a question of law reviewable de novo." State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i 1, 10, 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996) (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai`i 324, 329, 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i 8, 18, 904 P.2d 893, 903 (1995); State v. Higa, 79 Hawa......
  • Brown v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1999
    ...statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo." State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i at 10, 928 P.2d at 852 (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai`i 324, 329, 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i at 18, 904 P.2d at 903; State v. Higa, 79 Hawai`i at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT