Minnesota Case Laws
Click on the below to read Minnesota Case Laws for the following years:
2012
2010
2009
2008
2004
Minnesota Case Law 2012
In State v. Mulcahy, 2012 WL 2077318 (Minn.App. June 11, 2012) the defendant failed to appear and bonds totaling $55,000 were forfeited. The defendant was subsequently arrested in another state, and the surety moved to reinstate and discharge the bonds. The surety’s motion was filed between 90 and 180 days after forfeiture, and the trial court granted the motion except for $5,000 withheld for extradition and $5,500 for a 10% penalty pursuant to Rule Gen. Prac. 702(f). The surety appealed imposition of the 10% penalty. The Court held that the penalty was mandatory and rejected the surety’s arguments that the trial court had discretion to waive it. Lack of prejudice to the state and the surety’s good faith efforts to recover the defendant were factors in deciding whether to reinstate the bond, but they were not relevant to the mandatory penalty.
Minnesota Case Law 2010
In State v. Padilla, 2010 WL 3396902 (Minn.App. August 31, 2010) the defendant failed to appear, an order was entered forfeiting the bond, and a copy of the order was mailed to the agent but not to the surety. The agent and surety moved to reinstate and discharge the bond because the notice required by Minn.R.GenPrac. 702(e) was not given to the surety and the “bondsman.” The trial court reinstated the bond because the surety was not given notice but refused to discharge it. Instead, the court gave the surety and agent 30 days to request a hearing. The court denied a renewed motion to discharge and entered an order forfeiting the bond. The surety and agent appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that under the Rule “bondsman” was the entity issuing the bond, not the specific employee signing it, and so the requirement of notice to the “bondsman” was met by sending notice to the agent. The trial court’s reinstatement and 30 days notice cured any prejudice to the surety from the initial failure to notify it. At the second hearing, the surety did not produce the defendant and has not recovered him. Applying the Shetsky factors, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to discharge the bond.
In State v. Nelson, 2010 WL 3220156 (Minn.App. August 17, 2010) the defendant was apprehended by law enforcement personnel two months after he failed to appear. The surety did not contribute to his re-capture. The trial court initially reinstated the bond but imposed a 50% penalty because the surety did not serve the defendant with notice of the hearings on its motion to reinstate and discharge the bond. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision in an opinion reported at 773 N.W.2d 330 (Minn.App. 2009). Following remand, and without holding a further hearing, the trial court issued an order reviewing the factors for a penalty following reinstatement of a bond (the Shetsky factors) and reached the same result that it had before, i.e. a 50% penalty. The surety appealed the trial court’s refusal to hold a new hearing and its forfeiture of 50% of the bond. The Court held that the original two hearings gave the surety ample opportunity to present whatever evidence it had and that the trial court’s application of the Shetsky factors was not an abuse of discretion. In particular, the surety’s failure to make good faith efforts to apprehend the defendant during the two months in which he was a fugitive supported the trial court’s decision.
In State v. Lee, 2010 WL 1657500 (Minn.App. April 27, 2010) the defendant failed to appear. The surety had not yet taken steps to recover him when he was arrested in a neighboring county two weeks later. The surety sought remission of the forfeiture and reinstatement of the bond. The Court considered the Shetsky factors and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. The record showed no excuse for the defendant’s failure to appear and no effort by the surety to recover him. The State was prejudiced by having to re-schedule proceedings. The surety also argued that the defendant’s re-arrest made it impossible for the surety to perform its contract. The Court noted that the condition of the bond was the defendant’s appearance when required, or payment of the face amount of the bond, not recovery of the defendant following a breach. Any subsequent recovery by the surety was relevant to remission but not to a contractual impossibility argument. The Court affirmed denial of the surety’s motion for relief.
Minnesota Case Law 2009
In State v. Soliz, 2009 WL 366500 (Minn.App. February 17, 2009) a defendant released on several charges and several bonds failed to appear, but the surety located him 9 days later. The surety alerted law enforcement, and the defendant was recaptured. The trial court forfeited 10% of the bond amounts, and the surety appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court considered the required factors and did not abuse its discretion in ordering a partial forfeiture. The Court affirmed the judgment for 10% forfeiture.
In State v. Vang, 2009 WL 817860 (Minn.App. March 31, 2009) the defendant failed to appear for sentencing and the court forfeited his bond. The surety showed substantial efforts to locate him and the court granted several extensions of the appearance period, but ultimately the surety reported that it believed the defendant was living in Canada. The defendant remained a fugitive. The trial court reinstated and discharged only $500 of the $10,000 bond, and the surety appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The surety complained that the trial court had ruled on its motion without a hearing, but the Court held that no hearing was required. The Court reviewed the factors the trial court is to consider in considering whether to remit any part of the bail, and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
In State v. Langevin, 2009 WL 910790 (Minn.App. April 7, 2009) the defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. The surety contacted an indemnitor and had some surveillance performed but was not able to locate the defendant. The police arrested the defendant who was at large for 42 days. The surety applied to reinstate and discharge the forfeited bond. The trial court denied any relief and the surety appealed. The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court had considered the appropriate factors including the surety’s good-faith efforts and any prejudice to the state. The Court criticized the surety’s lack of monitoring prior to default, characterized its post-default efforts as “token” and held that the surety had not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
In State v. Blanco, 2009 WL 1444091 (Minn.App. May 26, 2009) the defendant failed to appear and the surety located him in El Salvador, but the district attorney declined to seek extradition. The charges were for assault and not extraditable offenses under the U.S.-El Salvador extradition treaty which, in any case, did not obligate El Salvador to extradite its citizens. The State presented evidence that El Salvador had never extradited an El Salvadorian citizen to the U.S. The defendant’s failure to appear was without excuse and the State was prejudiced in its prosecution. The surety’s good faith in locating him did not outweigh the other factors, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to discharge the bond.
In State v. Askland, 2009 WL 2366141 (Minn.App. August 4, 2009) the defendant was arrested for felony non-support of a child and a traffic offense. He was released on his own recognizance and failed to appear. After his re-arrest on a bench warrant, the court set bond which was posted by a surety. The defendant again failed to appear, and after an extension of time requested by the surety the bond was forfeited. The court directed that the bond proceeds be paid to the county human services department to give to the mother of the defendant’s child. A few days after the forfeiture, the surety recovered the defendant in another state and returned him to custody in Minnesota. The surety sought reinstatement and discharge of the bond. One of the factors considered by the trial court in denying reinstatement was the fact that the money had been disbursed to the child’s mother who was unlikely to be able to return it. The surety appealed.The Court of Appeals agreed with the surety that it was error to pay the bond proceeds to the child’s mother. By law forfeited bail money is to be deposited in the state’s general fund unless a statute authorizes its use for restitution. Here there was no such statute. It was also error to disburse the money before expiration of the surety’s 180 day period to petition for reinstatement of the bond. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed denial of the surety’s petition to reinstate and discharge the bond because other factors considered by the trial court included the willfulness of the defendant’s failure to appear (which was imputed to the surety) and the surety’s knowledge when it wrote the bond that the defendant had previously disregarded his obligations to appear in court. There was also some evidence the surety did not monitor the defendant prior to his failure to appear. The Court thought these other factors were sufficient to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion not to reinstate the bond independent of the fact that the money was erroneously paid in child support.
In State v. Nelson, 2009 WL 3078184 (Minn.App. September 29, 2009) the defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. After law enforcement apprehended him, the surety applied to reinstate and discharge the bond. The trail court thought that Minn. Gen. Prac. Rule 702(f) required personal service of the surety’s application on the defendant. The surety served the defendant by mail. The trial court reinstated and exonerated the bond but penalized the surety 50% of the bond amount for not properly serving the defendant. The Court of Appeals analyzed the Rule, held that personal service on the defendant was not required, reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case so the trial court could apply the relevant factors and determine whether to forfeit a portion of the bond.
In State v. Rodriguez, 2009 WL 4796587 (Minn.App. December 15, 2009) the defendant initially gave a false name to authorities, but his correct name was revealed in court before the bond was written. He failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. The surety moved for relief from the forfeiture because the bond was a contract and void because of a mutual mistake of fact as to the defendant’s true identity. At the time the contract was made, however, the State was aware of the defendant’s true identity even though the court file and other papers still used his alias. The surety’s unilateral mistake could not be a basis for avoiding the bond. The Court also rejected the surety’s argument that the bond should have been discharged because of its good faith efforts to recover the defendant. The Court noted that the trial court had discretion and that its discretion would be applied in light of the factors set forth in Shetsky v. Hennepin County, 239 Minn. 463, 60 N.W.2d 40 (1953). The Court reviewed each factor and thought that they did not justify discharge of the bond. The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the surety’s motion.
Minnesota Case Law 2008
In State of Minnesota v. Martin, 2008 WL 43874 (Minn. January 3, 2008), the trial court offered the defendant a choice of either release on his own recognizance conditioned on submission to random drug testing or $5,000 cash bond or $50,000 surety bond. The court admitted that it thought the defendant should have drug testing and set the amount of the bonds to force him to agree to the drug testing rather than to assure his appearance. The defendant appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trail court, and the defendant appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the trial court, and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 6.02, did not violate the sufficient sureties clause of the Minnesota Constitution because they offered an alternative of a surety bond conditioned only on appearance. The Court declined to adopt the argument that drug use per se was grounds to believe the defendant would fail to appear but thought that the trial court could consider drug use in evaluating whether the defendant would be a danger to himself or others. In this case, however, the trial court did not make such an evaluation and ordered drug testing simply because that was the judge’s standard practice. The Court also held that the trial judge abused his discretion by setting the amount of bail to coerce the defendant to accept the alternative of drug testing. Rule 6.02 requires release except on a finding that release will not reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance or will be inimical to public safety. The trial court violated the Rule by basing the amount of bail on another purpose. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the conditions of release and amount of bail to be required of the defendant based on the facts of the case not a blanket rule.
Minnesota Case Law 2004
State of Minnesota v. Rosillo, 2004 WL 1192085 (Minn. App. June 1, 2004) reviewed the criteria for reinstating and discharging a forfeited bond but held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating only $4,000 of one bond (the $4,000 was the cost the surety incurred in unsuccessful attempts to recover the defendant). This seems to be a harsh result given that the defendant was in prison in Mexico, but the court emphasized the surety and agent did very little to monitor him or keep informed about his non-appearance. The court also held that the court administrator’s failure to mail notice of non-appearance and forfeiture (the bond was reinstated when the defendant appeared two days later) was outweighed by the surety’s failure to monitor the defendant, and the trial court was justified in not discharging the other bond based on the administrator’s failure to mail the notice.