Harris v. State
Opinion
[247] OPINION
Appellants, sureties for the defendant Rupert Harris, were forced to make payment to respondent, the State of Nevada, on Harris’ forfeited bail bond when he failed to appear for trial in August, 1985. Appellants claim the district court erred in denying their motion to set aside the forfeiture. The motion was premised on noncompliance with NRS 178.508. An affidavit of mailing did not accompany the Notice of Intent to Forfeit, as required by the statute.1 Appellants alleged no other grounds for setting aside the forfeiture.
Appellants concede that they received actual notice of the intent to forfeit the bond and were not prejudiced by the lack of compliance with NRS 178.508. Where there is actual notice, lack of prejudice, and substantial compliance with the statute, a district court’s order forfeiting a bail bond will not be reversed. However, we do not condone the district court’s failure to comply with the requirements of NRS 178.508. Forfeitures are not favored at law, and statutes imposing them must be strictly construed. Wilshire Insurance Co. v. State, 94 Nev. 546, 582 P.2d 372 (1978). While Wilshire did not concern the technical requirements of an affidavit of mailing, the reasoning is valid. We hold that district courts must adhere to the provisions of NRS 178.508; an affidavit of mailing shall accompany the notice of intent to forfeit a bond, as the language of the statute requires.
In this case, appellants were not prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
756 P.2d 556 (Harris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.