Ex parte Houghton
| Decision Date | 24 October 1908 |
| Citation | 97 P. 1021,1 Okla.Crim. 299,1 Okla.Crim. 302,1908 OK CR 30 |
| Parties | Ex parte HOUGHTON. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In fixing the amount of bail, the sole purpose which should guide the court or judge should be to cause the appearance of the accused to answer the charge against him.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 209; Dec. Dig § 51. [*]]
For the purpose of an application to reduce bail, after information filed the court must assume that defendant is guilty of the offense charged.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 211; Dec. Dig § 53. [*]]
The Criminal Court of Appeals will not grant reduction of bail on habeas corpus, unless it clearly appears that the amount fixed by the trial court is excessive and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 211; Dec. Dig. § 53. [*]]
Where five informations were filed against petitioner, each charging him with illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, an order admitting petitioner to bail in the sum of $500 on each charge was not excessive; but an order fixing bail in the sum of $1,000 each, on three subsequent charges for the same offense, is excessive. When the trial court fixed the bail upon each of the first five charges at $500, it necessarily determined that such sum was sufficient to secure the attendance of petitioner to answer the subsequent charges.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 209; Dec. Dig. § 52. [*]]
Application of Ed Houghton for writ of habeas corpus. Writ denied.
This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was filed, and the writ of habeas corpus was properly issued on said petition, on the 6th day of October, 1908, and made returnable on the 13th day of October, 1908, service of said writ being acknowledged, and accepted by the sheriff of Choctaw county; and the said sheriff made return, which is set forth in an agreed statement of facts, which is as follows:
Agreed Statement of Facts.
Petitioner alleges that he is charged, by informations, with illegally selling whisky, in nine different cases, and that the bond in the three last cases has been put at $1,000 each, and in the other cases at $500 each; that he made application to the Hon. W. T. Glenn, county judge of Choctaw county, for a reduction on all of said bonds, and that said application was refused; that petitioner's restraint is illegal and unauthorized, because the amount fixed as bail, in each case, is excessive; that petitioner is a poor man, and can give bail in the sum of $250 only, in each case, and prays this court to reduce said bail in each case to a reasonable amount.
Gross & Jordan, for petitioner.
Charles West, Atty. Gen., and W. C. Reeves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
It is contended by the petitioner that his restraint is illegal and unauthorized, because the bail fixed in each charge by the county court is excessive, and therefore illegal and unauthorized; so that the proceeding before us is, in effect, an application for a reduction of the bail heretofore fixed by the county court in which the informations were filed. There are now pending, in said county court, 10 informations, and petitioner claims that, by reason of his poverty, he cannot give bail in the amount fixed by the county court.
The Bill of Rights of this state provides:
When an indictment is rendered, or an information is filed, the court must assume, for the purpose of fixing bail, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. Ex parte McClellan (decided in this term of court, not yet officially reported), 97 P. 1019. Assuming, then, that the defendant is guilty of these several offenses, we are asked to say that the bail, as fixed by the county court, is "excessive" within the inhibition of the Bill of Rights. Bail is not to be deemed excessive simply because the particular person charged cannot give the bail required, but bail should never be exacted for the purpose of punishing a person charged with crime, for no person is punishable for an offense except upon a plea of guilty, or upon a conviction by a jury. Bail is exacted for the purpose of securing the attendance of the defendant at court, at all times when his presence may be lawfully required, and in rendering himself in execution of any judgment that may be pronounced upon him. In applications to this court, in habeas corpus, for reduction of bail upon the ground that the amount fixed by the trial court is excessive, this court will not interfere, unless it clearly appears that the amount fixed is excessive, and entirely disproportionate to the offense charged, and is, in effect, a denial of the petitioner's constitutional rights. It must clearly appear that the trial court has abused its discretion before this court will reduce the amount. In the case of Ex parte Duncan, 53 Cal. 410, the rule was stated that it must be assumed that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial