Com. v. Hayden

Decision Date03 November 1972
Citation489 S.W.2d 513
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Leroy HAYDEN and Johnson Bonding Company, Inc., Appellees. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. James C. JOHNSON and Johnson Bonding Company, Inc., Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Carl Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellant.

E. W. Rivers, Paducah, for appellees.

John J. O'Hara, Covington, Leslie J. Whitmer, Frankfort, for Kentucky Bar Assn.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

James C. Johnson and his employer, Johnson Bonding Company, were indicted on three counts of accepting money for a bail bond in excess of the premium for the bond, in violation of KRS 304.34-080(1)(e), and on three counts of suggesting to and advising a person for whom a bail bond was written that he employ a particular attorney to represent him, in violation of KRS 304.34-080(1)(g). Leroy Hayden and his employer, Johnson Bonding Company, were indicted on three counts of suggesting to and advising a person for whom a bail bond was written that he employ a particular attorney to represent him, in violation of KRS 304.34-080(1)(g). Each of the charged offenses was punishable, under KRS 304.99-030, by a fine not more than $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both.

The circuit court dismissed the indictments and the Commonwealth has appealed under KRS 21.140(3) for a certification of the law.

The ground on which the circuit court dismissed the indictment as to the charges of suggesting or advising employment of a particular attorney, in violation of KRS 304.34-080(1)(g), was that the statute is unconstitutional, being in 'violation of both the First Amendment * * * and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and * * * of the Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.'

The ground on which the indictment was dismissed as to the charges of accepting money for a bail bond in excess of the premium was that the counts 'were not based upon the complete records and do not constitute an offense as drafted, and * * * fail to set forth that the amounts alleged to have been received were not collateral security as allowed by'. KRS 304.34-080(1)(e).

We shall consider first the question of constitutionality of the provision of KRS 304.34--080(1)(g) that no bail bondsman shall 'Suggest or advise the employment of any particular attorney to represent the principal.'

As stated in Colten v. Commonwealth, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 374, aff.407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584, the government's 'important or substantial governmental interest' which must exist as a basis for regulation under the police power in the area of First Amendment freedoms, is relative to the importance or substantiality of the particular purported exercise of on of those freedoms.

The state government has an important and substantial interest in the regulation of the legal profession and the protection of the public from the evils of solicitation of business and referral agreements. Likewise the state has an important and substantial interest in the regulation of the bail-bond business, which has features making it peculiarly an appropriate subject for police-power regulations. See Jackson v. Beavers, 156 Ga. 71, 118 S.E. 751.

There is no showing, however, of any important and substantial interest on the part of a bail bondsman in the suggesting or recommending of the employment of at attorney. Therefore, in the balance of interests, the government's interest is overwhelming, and justifies the regulation in question.

The trial court's reliance on N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405, is, we think, misplaced. The holding there simply was that the N.A.A.C.P. had such an important and substantial interest in the recommending and employing of counsel for Negroes as to outweigh the state's interest in regulating...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Martin v. Com., 2000-SC-1101-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 23 Enero 2003
    ......Whether the alleged conduct of Appellants falls within the coverage of those provisions must await chapter three, for there is no summary judgment procedure in a criminal case in Kentucky. Commonwealth v. Hayden, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 513, 516 (1972); Commonwealth v. Hay, Ky.App., 987 S.W.2d 792, 794-95 (1998); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, Ky.App., 905 S.W.2d 83, 84 (1995). . I. THE STATUTES. .         In 1995, the relevant provisions of KRS chapters 121 and 121A provided in pertinent part as follows ......
  • Barth v. Com., 1999-SC-1027-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 25 Octubre 2001
    ......Grand juries, not prosecutors, indict felony defendants, RCr 5.20; and the rule in Kentucky has long been that summary judgment does not exist in criminal cases. Commonwealth v. Hayden, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 513, 516 (1972); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, Ky.App., 905 S.W.2d 83, 84 (1995) The Commonwealth is entitled to present its evidence to a jury before a trial court can dismiss a charge by directed verdict of acquittal. .         Michael also claims it was error to instruct ......
  • Flynt v. Com., 2000-SC-0587-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 22 Mayo 2003
    ....... 32. Commonwealth v. Cundiff, 149 Ky. 37, 147 S.W. 767, 768 (1912). See also Hayden v. Johnson, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 513, 516 (1972) ("There is no authority for the use of summary judgment procedure in a criminal prosecution."); Commonwealth v. Hughes, 153 Ky. 34, 154 S.W. 399, 400 (1913) ("The trial court may .. determine upon the trial whether there is any evidence conducing to ......
  • Commonwealth v. Fillhardt
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 2 Septiembre 2022
    ...... Kentucky. . .           BRIEF. FOR APPELLEE: Dawn M. Gentry John Hayden Newport, Kentucky. . .          . BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND K. THOMPSON, JUDGES. . .          . ......
  • 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