Simms v. Oedekoven, 92-97

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Citation: 839 P.2d 381
• Docket Number: No. 92-97,92-97
• Parties: Robert J. SIMMS, Petitioner, v. Byron OEDEKOVEN, Sheriff of Campbell County, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 28 September 1992

Page 381

839 P.2d 381 Robert J. SIMMS, Petitioner,
v.
Byron OEDEKOVEN, Sheriff of Campbell County, Respondent. No. 92-97. Supreme Court of Wyoming. Sept. 28, 1992.

Page 382

Wyoming Public Defender Program: Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Stephen R. Johnson, Sr. Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Sylvia Lee Hackl, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Wolff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT ^*, and GOLDEN, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

The constitutional question presented in this matter is whether a finding by a judicial officer, pursuant to Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant justifies a refusal to set bail. The county court for Campbell County, Wyoming concluded that, in this instance, the only sufficient surety to assure the appearance of the defendant, Robert J. Simms (Simms), was detention and, therefore, the court refused to set bail despite the language of Article 1, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming which provides, "[a]ll persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great." We hold that the provisions of Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1 contravene Article 1, Section 14 of the Constitution, and there was no justification for the court's refusal to set bail. The Constitution of the State of Wyoming must control

Page 383

over the provisions of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Order on Writ of Habeas Corpus entered June 12, 1992 in this matter is confirmed in every respect.

We have a limited record in this matter and, consequently, we rely primarily upon the allegations of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus together with the documents attached to that Petition. The underlying facts are not disputed by the State of Wyoming. From these documents, it appears that about 9:00 P.M. on January 22, 1992 Simms accompanied a woman whom he had just met to her motel room in Gillette, Wyoming. After they entered the room, she left Simms alone for a few minutes while she used the bathroom. Sometime that evening, or early the next morning, Simms left. After he left, the victim realized that she was missing some valuable jewelry and a substantial sum of money.

On January 25, 1992, Simms was arrested in South Dakota on the charge of grand larceny filed in Wyoming pursuant to Wyo.Stat. § 6-3-402(a), (c)(i) (1988). ¹ Simms did not consent to extradition from South Dakota and, after a contested extradition hearing, he was ordered extradited about April 24, 1992. At his initial court appearance, the prosecution requested, and received, a continuance pursuant to Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1(f). ² Simms' initial appearance then was pursued on April 28, 1992, and the judge of the county court found that Simms was "a serious flight risk" who would not likely appear voluntarily at his trial. The county court judge ruled, consistently with this finding, that Simms should be held without bond pending adjudication of his case, in accordance with the provisions of Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1(e).

Following that ruling, Simms petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus which was filed with this court on April 29, 1992. Simms' contention in his petition was that he was illegally detained because he was denied his right to bail by the ruling of the county court.

This issue is one of first impression in Wyoming, and we have not found a precedent for the circumstances presented in any other jurisdiction. The issue posed is whether Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1(e), which permits detention without bail for an accused who is found to be a flight risk, is compatible with the provisions of Article 1, Section 14 of the Wyoming Constitution.

In resisting the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the State argues that it was appropriate to hold Simms without bail because Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1(e) allows detention if "[t]he judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community." This rule provision was modeled after 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (1984), a provision of the Bail Reform Act of 1984. The federal courts have upheld the federal statute against a variety of constitutional attacks. U.S. v. Parker, 848 F.2d 61 (5th Cir.1988) (Fifth Amendment); U.S. v. Walker, 808 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir.1986) (due process); U.S. v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758 (7th Cir.1985) (Fifth and Eighth Amendments); U.S. v. Savides, 658 F.Supp. 1399 (N.D.Ill.1987), aff'd 898 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied 497 U.S. 1030, 110 S.Ct. 3286, 111 L.Ed.2d 795 (1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 878, 111 S.Ct. 210, 112 L.Ed.2d 170 (1990), on remand 758 F.Supp. 466 (N.D.Ill.1991) (due process). We can see no reason why the federal courts could not also find it compatible with the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution

Page 384

of the United States which provides only that "excessive bail shall not be required." In our view, Wyo.R.Crim.P. 46.1(e) would not be invalidated by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution, however, does not encompass language articulating a right to bail as does Article 1, Section 14 of the Wyoming Constitution.

This court previously has interpreted the language in our state constitution in this way:

The right to furnish bail with sufficient sureties, then, arises in favor of any person accused of crime, and before conviction, absolutely and without exception in cases of all crimes not punishable with death * * *.

State v. Crocker, 5 Wyo. 385, 40 P. 681, 685 (1895).

Decisions in other states bearing on the same or similar constitutional language are afforded persuasive effect. Matter of Johnson, 568 P.2d 855 (Wyo.1977). We have considered similar constitutional provisions from other states and have sought guidance from their courts with respect to the interpretation of this provision. See Petition of Humphrey, 601 P.2d 103 (Okla.Crim.App.1979) (listing...