Massachusetts Case Laws
Click on the below to read Massachusetts Case Laws for the following years:
2011
2005
Massachusetts Case Law 2011
In Commonwealth v. Bautista, 2011 WL 1332345 (Mass. April 11, 2011) an individual posted a cash bond for the defendant. The defendant did not appear, but the surety and the defendant’s attorney represented to the court that the defendant had been taken into custody by the United States and was deported or in the process of being deported. The surety argued that he should get his cash back because his inability to produce the defendant was caused by an act of the United States and without his fault (Mass. G.L. c.276 §70). The record suggested that the defendant admitted he was in the U.S. illegally and consented to deportation. The Court thought that representations by the attorney and the surety, unsupported by any documentary evidence, did not establish that the defendant was rendered unavailable by an act of the United States, and if the defendant consented to deportation it was his own act not that of the Government that caused him not to appear. The Court did not reach the issue of whether the surety was without fault in the defendant’s failure to appear, but in dicta rejected the argument that by writing a bond for an alien the surety automatically assumed the risk of deportation. The Court thought that each case had to be decided on its own facts. The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the surety’s motion for return of the cash bond.
In Commonwealth v. Gomez, 2011 WL 61886 (Mass.App. January 11, 2011) the defendant was released on his own recognizance with a cash deposit of the bail amount. He failed to appear for the second day of his trial because he had been arrested on an unrelated charge. His presence was secured the following day, but the trial court reasoned that he had set the sequence of events in motion by committing the unrelated crime and his bail should be forfeited. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court thought that under G.L. c. 276, §70 a surety would have been exonerated because the act of the Government prevented surrender of the defendant. The Court held that the statute should not be limited to a surety, and a defendant released on his own recognizance with a cash deposit should be treated as “bail” under §70.
Massachusetts Case Law 2005
In State v. Cabral, 2005 WL 10313 (Mass. January 4, 2005) the state charged a bail bondsman and his alleged agents with assault and various other crimes in connection with the apprehension and surrender of the bond principal. The Court held that the common law privilege of the surety and its agents to apprehend and surrender the principal is still the law in Massachusetts. The Court discussed the burden of proof and standards to determine the extent of this lawful authority.