State v. Cardinal
| Decision Date | 26 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-506,86-506 |
| Citation | 520 A.2d 984,147 Vt. 461 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 68 A.L.R.4th 1075 STATE of Vermont v. Anthony D. CARDINAL. |
Melissa A. Dempf, Chittenden County Deputy State's Atty., Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee.
Kenneth L. Geduldig, Burlington, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, C.J., and HILL, PECK, GIBSON and HAYES, JJ.
This is an appeal under 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b) and V. R.A.P. 9(a) from a bail order of the trial court forfeiting the defendant's originally posted bail and imposing additional $250,000 bail. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering forfeiture of the $15,000 cash bail initially posted by defendant, and by imposing the additional bail, after finding he had breached the original conditions of release. We vacate the trial court's order forfeiting bail, and modify that part of the trial court's order setting bail at $250,000.
Defendant was arraigned on a charge of sexual assault, 13 V.S.A. § 3252, on September 4, 1986. At that time, the trial court ordered the defendant released on several conditions, including the requirement that he not be charged with or have probable cause found for a felony, a crime against a person, or an offense like sexual assault, and that defendant execute a bail bond of $10,000 with sufficient sureties, or deposit cash of $10,000 in lieu of the bond.
On September 11, 1986, the district court issued a relief from abuse order prohibiting defendant from having any contact with W.C., the alleged victim of the sexual assault charge from September 4. On September 15, 1986, defendant was arraigned on a violation of probation imposed prior to the September 4 charge. The defendant was again ordered released on conditions, including an additional $5,000 cash bail.
On September 19, 1986, defendant was arrested and arraigned on two additional charges: violation of the relief from abuse order issued on September 11, 15 V.S.A. § 1108, and obstruction of justice, 13 V.S.A. § 3015. The basis of these additional charges were allegations that defendant had spoken to W.C. by telephone and threatened her with bodily injury or death if she continued to press the sexual assault charges.
On the basis of testimony taken at the September 19 arraignment, the trial court found that defendant had violated condition number three of the original bail order (defendant not to be charged or probable cause found on a felony or other crime against the person). The court, on the basis of this finding, set bail and conditions of release concurrently on all charges, including the requirement that defendant execute a bail bond with sufficient sureties, or deposit cash, in the amount of $250,000.
On October 2, 1986, a hearing was held on defendant's motion to reduce bail and the State's motion to forfeit the original $15,000 cash bail posted. At the close of this hearing, the court ordered that bail and other conditions of release remain unchanged. In addition, the court ordered forfeiture of the $15,000 previously posted by defendant on the basis of his violation of condition three of the original release conditions.
We first address the propriety of the forfeiture of the $15,000 cash bail for breach of conditions of release other than an appearance condition. Unlike the federal 1 and some state jurisdictions, 2 neither our statutes nor our rules of court grant authority to trial courts to order forfeiture of cash bail for breach of conditions of release. This Court has not had the opportunity to address this precise question, 3 so our analysis begins with first principles.
The United States Supreme Court has established that the sole constitutionally legitimate purpose of monetary conditions of release is to provide "additional assurance of the presence of an accused." Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951); see also ABA Standards For Criminal Justice, Pretrial Release Std. 10-5.4(b) (2d ed. 1980) (). This principle is consistent with the policy underlying our bail statutes which allow the imposition of various conditions of release, including monetary ones, for the purpose of "reasonably [assuring] the appearance of the person at trial." 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a). See also State v. Pray, 133 Vt. 537, 541, 346 A.2d 227, 229 (1975) ().
Clearly, forfeiture of cash bail for breach of conditions other than an appearance condition transforms monetary bail from a guarantor of appearance into a potentially punitive tool useful in the enforcement of all bail conditions. The purpose of forfeiture, however, is not to punish, but rather to assure that the defendant will appear at court when required. Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co. v. State, 35 Md.App. 55, 57-58, 368 A.2d 1032, 1034 (1977). Moreover, the State has provided no authority, nor have we discovered any, to support the forfeiture of bail, in the absence of express statutory authorization, for breach of conditions other than an appearance condition. 4
In this case, the court ordered forfeiture on the basis of the breach of a condition prohibiting certain types of future criminal conduct. There was no allegation that the defendant had failed to appear before the court as required by the original bail order. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court could not order forfeiture of defendant's previously posted cash bail. In re E.H., 78 Ill.App.3d 854, 857, 34 Ill.Dec. 115, 117, 397 N.E.2d 571, 573 (1979) ().
We recognize that cases like this, where a defendant has demonstrated a strong propensity to disregard the orders of the trial court, and where the victim's safety has been threatened by the defendant's conduct, present difficult problems for the trial court in fashioning appropriate conditions of release. Nevertheless, punitive forfeiture of cash bail, originally imposed as a means of assuring defendant's appearance at court, is not the appropriate method of enforcing other conditions of release. Consistent with the principle that courts have the duty "to make every effort to resolve the bail application in favor of some sort of release, ..." State v. Mecier, 136 Vt. 336, 339, 388 A.2d 435, 438 (1978), a court can take steps, other than forfeiture of cash bail, to enforce its bail orders. If a defendant violates conditions of release other than an appearance condition, a court can impose increasingly more restrictive conditions, id., as well as revoke the right to bail altogether, if the court determines that no conditions of release will assure the defendant's appearance at trial, State v. Churchill, 133 Vt. 338, 340, 341 A.2d 22, 23 (1975), or that the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bonds
...purpose of monetary conditions of release is to provide ‘additional assurance of the presence of the accused.’ ” State v. Cardinal,147 Vt. 461, 464, 520 A.2d 984, 986 (1986)(quoting Stack v. Boyle,342 U.S. 1, 5, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951)). Under our policy, forfeiture of bail exists not......
-
State v. Lohr
...assurance of the presence of an accused.’ " State v. Pratt, 2017 VT 9, ¶ 13, 204 Vt. 282, 166 A.3d 600 (quoting State v. Cardinal, 147 Vt. 461, 464, 520 A.2d 984, 986 (1986) ); see also Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951) ("Bail set at a figure higher than an amount......
-
In re Miller
...that restrict travel and impose curfews, for example, are intended to ensure the person's appearance at trial. State v. Cardinal, 147 Vt. 461, 464, 520 A.2d 984, 986 (1986) (stating that the policy underlying our bail statutes that allow imposition of various conditions of release, includin......
-
State v. Lohr
...assurance of the presence of an accused.' " State v. Pratt, 2017 VT 9, ¶ 13, 204 Vt. 282, 166 A.3d 600 (quoting State v. Cardinal, 147 Vt. 461, 464, 520 A.2d 984, 986 (1986)); see also Stack v.Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951) ("Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ......
-
The Green Mountain boys still love their freedom: criminal jurisprudence of the Vermont Supreme Court.
...v. Dean, 536 A.2d 909 (Vt. 1987); State v. Catsam, 534 A.2d 164 (Vt. 1987); State v. Sird, 528 A.2d 1114 (Vt. 1987); State v. Cardinal, 520 A.2d 984 (Vt. 1986); State v. McQuillen, 518 A.2d 25 (Vt. Table Six Divided Post-Investigation Cases(*) Court Conservative Liberal Allen 75% 25% Dooley......
-
Bail & pre-trial release
...and finding that majority rule is to permit forfeiture for violation of conditions other than nonappearance). But see State v. Cardinal , 147 Vt. 461, 520 A.2d 984, 987 (Vt. 1986) (bail forfeiture not permitted except for nonappearance; court should address violation of other conditions by ......