Bail
Category > Bail
Updated 2/4/2024Trial courts must consider an arrestee’s ability to pay alongside the efficacy of less restrictive alternatives when setting bail. California’s current cash bail system is unconstitutional. Under the new process, judges must consider a defendant’s ability to pay when setting bail in criminal cases. And indigent defendants should not be detained awaiting trial unless non-monetary release conditions can’t ensure public safety.id: 27270
Updated 2/2/2024Bail denial was reversed where it was not based on an individual assessment of the case.Defendant was charged with two counts of felony child abuse. After the arraignment he was out on bail, made all court appearances and had no concerning incidents. The court later issued a pretrial detention order finding that the charges were serious and defendant’s continued release might endanger the children in the community. However, the detention order was not based on an individual assessment of the circumstances and was improper.id: 27898
Updated 2/1/2024The trial court erred by imposing an excessive bail amount in a child molest case knowing defendant had no ability to pay that amount and without considering nonfinancial conditions as alternatives to money bail.The trial court misunderstood its authority following In re Humphrey (2021) 1.1 Cal.5th 145, when denying defendant’s motion to reduce bail. The court first erred in finding Humphrey did not apply to cases where defendant was charged with a serious or violent felony. Next, the court imposed a bail amount ($2.45 million) that it knew defendant could not meet. Finally, the court erred in failing to address nonfinancial conditions as alternatives or in addition to money bail.id: 27942
Updated 1/31/2024Allowing pretrial custody credits for those on electronic monitoring programs but not to those on home detention–subject to monitoring while on bail is an equal protection violation.People who participate in electronic monitoring programs under Penal Code section 1203.018 are entitled to preconviction custody credits. People on home detention and subject to electronic monitoring while on bail are similarly situated and denying preconviction custody credits to these people would deny equal protection.id: 28038
The trial court abused its discretion by increasing defendant’s bail after the Court of Appeal allowed him to withdraw his plea.Defendant was charged with multiple counts of grand theft, and was out of custody on bail. He then pled guilty to certain counts and others were dismissed. He later appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court thereafter held a bail review hearing, and abused its discretion by increasing his bail from the original amount of $100,000 to $300,000 as there had been no change of circumstance as required under Penal Code section 1289.id: 25829
The trial court erred by failing to consider defendant’s financial ability to pay bail and less restrictive alternatives to money bail.The prosecutor presented no evidence that non-monetary conditions of release could not sufficiently protect the public, and the trial court found defendant suitable for release on bail, but it then set bail in an amount that was impossible for the defendant to pay. Defendant was entitled to a new bail hearing at which the trial court inquires into his ability to pay and alternatives to money bail.id: 25499
The trial court lacked the authority to impose a Fourth Amendment waiver as a bail condition.The trial court erred in imposing, as a condition of bail, a requirement that defendant waive her Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless or unreasonable searches.id: 25507
The trial court erred by preventing defendants from using their contractor’s licenses as a condition of bail absent a showing of necessity.Defendants were charged with fraudulent use of a contractor’s license in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7027.3. The trial court erred by preventing them from using their contractor’s licenses as a condition of bail absent an evidentiary hearing establishing the condition was necessary to protect the public.id: 25513
The trial court erred by increasing defendant’s bail to $1 million dollars after an ex parte hearing.Defendant was charged with aggravated assault along with a street gang allegation. The trial court released him on $90,000 bail. The court later increased the bail amount to $1 million following an ex parte hearing. However, the court erred by failing to address the reliability of the confidential information given at the hearing, by failing to provide defendant with the gist of the prosecution’s request to increase the bail, and by failing to consider some manner in which defendant could participate in the hearing while preserving the state’s need to proceed in camera.id: 23332
Prohibiting defendant from practicing medicine as a condition of bail violated due process where defendant was not provided with notice or a hearing.As a condition of bail on pending criminal charges, the trial court prohibited the defendant, a physician, from practicing medicine. The bail condition was requested by the Medical Board of California, which appeared without prior notice at the arraignment. The bail condition was not unreasonable per se but violated defendant's procedural due process rights since it was imposed without prior notice, an evidentiary hearing, or an opportunity to be heard.id: 18164
Defendant was entitled to an OR release subject to reasonable conditions when his preliminary hearing was continued for good cause beyond the 10 day period.Defendant was entitled to be released on his own recognizance when the preliminary examination was continued for good cause beyond the 10 day period specified in Penal Code section 859b. However, the trial court's failure to grant him OR release pending the preliminary examination did not amount to the denial of a substantial right at the preliminary examination within the meaning of section 995 absent the evidence that the error reasonably might have affected the outcome of the hearing.id: 19095
A second judge was without authority to reverse the original judge's bail order even if the latter failed to comply with the bail statute. After a judge sets bail for a criminal defendant awaiting trial, another judge may not increase the bail solely because that judge believes the first judge's bail determination was erroneous.id: 17019
Municipal court has discretion to rule on OR release request by misdemeanor defendant absent two days notice to prosecutor.Defendant was charged with misdemeanor battery. At his arraignment he moved to be released on his own recognizance. The municipal court refused to rule on the motion for OR release on the ground that Penal Code section 1270.1 prohibited any consideration of the motion without two court days written notice to the prosecutor. However, section 1270.1 mandates compliance with section 825 which requires an arrestee be brought to a magistrate within 48 hours. Where the arraignment takes place within the time period set forth in section 825, the trial court must exercise its discretion and rule on the motion for OR release.id: 15786
The trial court's failure to state specific reasons for its decision to set bail at 10 times the amount specified in the bail schedule required a remand.Defendant was vice president of the local Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club. He was indicted for drug sales. The trial court set bail at 10 times the amount specified in the bail schedule but failed to state specific grounds for its decision. The court's vague references to its knowledge of the record and the fact that defendant posed a danger to the youth community were insufficient. The matter was remanded for a proper bail hearing where the court must state the pertinent facts.id: 16516
Updated 2/4/2024The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying bail for defendant charged with multiple counts of child endangerment.The trial court denied defendant’s request for pretrial bail due to the seriousness of the charged offense, which included 12 counts of felony child endangerment. The offenses involved an act of violence under Cal. Constitution, Article 1, section 12(b), and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying bail.id: 27675
Updated 2/4/2024Article 1, section 28 of the California Constitution does not guarantee an absolute right to release on bail.The bail provisions of article 1, section 28(f)(3) can be reconciled with those of article 1, section 12 and both sections govern bail in noncapital cases. Section 12 does not guarantee an unqualified right to pretrial release and does not require courts to set bail at an amount the defendant can afford.id: 27598
Updated 2/4/2024Article 1, section 28 of the California Constitution does not guarantee an absolute right to release on bail.The bail provisions of article 1, section 28(f)(3) can be reconciled with those of article 1, section 12 and both sections govern bail in noncapital cases. Section 12 does not guarantee an unqualified right to pretrial release and does not require courts to set bail at an amount the defendant can afford.id: 27600
Updated 2/3/2024The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying bail where evidence supported the court’s findings that defendant committed the offense and that his release could lead to great bodily harm of others. The trial court denied defendant’s request for bail after finding substantial evidence that he aided and abetted a friend in the kidnap and sex-related crimes against a 15 year-old girl, and that a substantial likelihood existed that his release would result in great bodily harm to others. The record contained substantial evidence to support both findings. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying bail. id: 26851
When a criminal defendant posts bail the court has the authority to impose reasonable conditions related to public safety. When a criminal defendant posts bail, the court has the authority to impose additional conditions. In this case, the defendant challenged an additional condition of release that she agree to warrantless searches. The court did not address the specific condition because it was moot as to this defendant.id: 26208
The trial court did not err in finding the bail exception for dangerous defendants applied to the lookout in an attempted kidnap and sexual assault.The California Constitution (article 1, section 12) provides that noncapital defendants shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties, unless the court finds an exception, such as whether there is a substantial likelihood that the release would result in great bodily harm to others. The evidence supported the trial court’s finding even though defendant argued the attempted kidnap/sexual assault was spontaneous and defendant only acted as the lookout. The court could have reasonably inferred that the act had been planned over a period of time and that both men were highly dangerous.id: 25544
Supreme Court holds that alien felons can be detained pending deportation proceedings.In Kim v. Ziglar, 276 F.3d 523 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. id: 20161
The trial court did not err in revoking defendant's OR status after the arraigning magistrate improperly granted the OR release.The superior court arraigned defendant on a felony information and revoked his release on his own recognizance on a pending felony probation violation case. The court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's OR status where he was improperly placed on OR by the arraigning magistrate in the first place. The magistrate dispensed with any paperwork and failed to conduct a hearing. Since the trial court's hearing was substantial, occurred after defendant was held to answer - a change in circumstances - and included an opportunity for defendant to file a bail motion, the court complied with Penal Code section 1289.id: 18466
Trial court may impose reasonable bail conditions on a person convicted of a misdemeanor.Penal Code section 1272 provides that a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a misdemeanor, but not yet sentenced, has an absolute right to bail. A trial court may impose conditions on the granting of that bail, but the conditions have to be reasonable and related to public safety.id: 17590
Under section 4004, good cause did not exist to release an actor from jail where he was released to complete work on a motion picture.Penal Code section 4004 allows the release of an inmate from county jail for "good cause." The trial court erred in finding good cause under this provision to release actor Robert Downey to assume his work on a movie since there was nothing exceptional about his circumstances. He was simply released to go to work in the private sector in order to honor his contractual obligations and to make him employable in the future. Moreover, Downey's ability to pay the costs associated with his release cannot be considered a factor in determining whether good cause exists for his release.id: 15787
The enactment of Proposition 4-a bail provision-only rendered the bail provision of Proposition 8 inoperative.Appellant challenged his five-year sentence enhancement for a serious prior felony conviction under Penal Code Section 667. He argued that the entirety of Proposition 8 (including the enactment of section 667) was rendered inoperative because in the same election the voters passed Proposition 4, a bail provision and Proposition 8 likewise contained a bail provision. However, that Proposition 4 received a greater number of votes than Proposition 8 only rendered inoperative the bail provision of Proposition 8. The remainder of Proposition 8 survived the enactment of Proposition 4.id: 11783
Bail may be denied following a capital crime regardless of whether the People seek the death penalty.Regardless of whether the People actually seek the death penalty, bail properly may be denied whenever the accused is charged with an offense statutorily punishable by death and the facts are evident or the presumption of guilt is great (Cal. Const. Art I section 12(a)).id: 11784
Bail was precluded for a defendant who was charged with a capital offense even though the prosecution was not seeking the death penalty.Defendant was charged with special circumstance murder but the prosecution announced it would not seek the death penalty. The trial court did not err in denying his request for bail since bail is precluded where a defendant is charged with a capital offense, even if he or she is not actually in jeopardy of the death penalty.id: 11785
The filing of an appeal by the People did not constitute a changed circumstance entitling defendant to a bail review under Penal Code section 1275.Defendant was convicted of murder. During the course of proceedings bail had been raised from $250,000 to $2,000,000 due to a failure to appear for the preliminary hearing. One month after the conviction defendant moved for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The motion was granted and the People appealed the granting of the motion. Defendant moved to set reasonable bail pending the People's appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the filing of an appeal by the People did not constitute a changed circumstance entitling defendant to a bail review under Penal Code section 1275.id: 11786
The trial court erred in setting bail for a minor who was charged with a capital offense.The trial court set bail for defendant - a minor - who was charged with a special circumstance murder. Penal Code section 1270.5 prohibits the setting of bail for a person charged with a capital offense. However, a person under the age of 18 years cannot by law be punished with the death penalty. The People argued that the defendant faced a capital offense because, although he could not be punished with the death penalty,the offense with which he was charged carried the maximum penalty. Acknowledging that the test for determining a capital offense is to focus on the maximum penalty, without regard to an individual defendant's <U>actual</U> penalty, the court reversed the trial court's order setting bail.id: 11787
Under appropriate circumstances a court may condition OR release upon a defendant's agreement to submit to random drug testing and warrantless searches.In making the decision to release an accused on his or her own recognizance (OR) prior to judgment, a court or magistrate may condition such release upon the defendant's agreement to submit to random drug testing and warrantless search and seizure during that period.id: 11788
Grant of a continuance for the preliminary hearing in a multiple defendant case does not require O.R. release for codefendants.Codefendants sought release from custody pursuant to Penal Code section 859b on their own recognizance after the preliminary hearing was continued. The trial court erred in ruling section 1050.1 was inapplicable to preliminary hearings and that section 859b mandated an O.R. release. Harmony can be achieved between section 859b and section 1050.1 by construing defendant in section 859b, subdivision (b)(1) to mean all jointly charged defendants such that a request for a continuance by one defendant is deemed a request by all jointly charged defendants. The magistrate maintains the discretion to release any defendant from custody but such release is not mandatory.id: 11613
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245