State v. Finley
This text of State v. Finley (State v. Finley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
No. 12652
I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A H O R F H F OTN
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
RICHARD JAMES FINLEY,
Defendant,
and
INLAND BONDING COMPANY,
Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record :
For Appellant :
Donald R. Matthews argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana Thomas J . Beers, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General, argued, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz argued, Polson, Montana
Submitted: March 2 2 , 1974
Decided : 1 8 1974 F i l e d :APR 1 8 1974 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l by a bonding company from a n o r d e r of
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lake County, r e f u s i n g t o v a c a t e a b a i l
bond f o r f e i t u r e .
Richard F i n l e y , defendant i n t h i s a c t i o n , plead g u i l t y t o a c h a r g e of f i r s t d e g r e e a s s a u l t . H e w a s r e l e a s e d when h i s
s u r e t y , I n l a n d Bonding Company, p o s t e d t h e i r $2,500 b a i l bond.
He was o r d e r e d t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t on March 1 4 , 1973, f o r s e n t e n c i n g .
On March 1 4 , 1973, d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a p p e a r f o r s e n t e n c i n g
and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e b a i l bond f o r f e i t e d . Subse-
q u e n t l y , d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d on a bench w a r r a n t J u l y 25, 1973, t a k e n t o P o l s o n , Montana, s e n t e n c e d , and i s now i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n .
On August 1 4 , 1973, t h e bonding company f i l e d a motion t o
vacate t h e order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f e i t i n g b a i l . The motion
w a s denied. From t h i s d e n i a l , t h i s a p p e a l i s b r o u g h t .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review:
(1) Does t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r b a i l
bonds t h i r t y d a y s a f t e r f o r f e i t u r e ?
(2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n deny-
i n g t h e bonding company's motion t o v a c a t e t h e p r i o r f o r f e i t u r e
order? The q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w a r e e s s e n t i a l l y q u e s -
t i o n s of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The a p p l i c a b l e s e c t i o n of t h e Montana C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e Act i s s e c t i o n 95-1116, R.C.M. 1947.
T h a t s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f b a i l and f o r f e i t u r e
when t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e n o t performed a s f o l l o w s : " ( a ) When t h e c o n d i t i o n s of b a i l have been performed and t h e accused h a s been d i s c h a r g e d from h i s o b l i - gations i n t h e cause, the court s h a l l return t o him o r h i s s u r e t i e s t h e d e p o s i t o f any c a s h , s t o c k s o r bonds. I f t h e b a i l is real e s t a t e , t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t i f y , i n w r i t i n g , t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r and t h e l i e n of t h e b a i l bond on t h e r e a l e s t a t e s h a l l be d i s c h a r g e d . I f t h e b a i l i s a w r i t t e n u n d e r t a k i n g o r a commercial s u r e t y bond, i t s h a l l be d i s c h a r g e d and t h e s u r e t i e s e x o n e r a t e d .
" ( b ) I f t h e a c c u s e d d o e s n o t comply w i t h t h e con- d i t i o n s o f t h e b a i l bond, t h e c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s - d i c t i o n s h a l l e n t e r an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g t h e b a i l t o be f o r f e i t e d .
" I f s u c h f o r f e i t u r e i s d e c l a r e d by a d i s t r i c t c o u r t , n o t i c e of such order of f o r f e i t u r e s h a l l be m a i l e d f o r t h w i t h by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t t o t h e a c c u s e d and h i s s u r e t i e s a t t h e i r l a s t known address. " ( c ) I f a t any t i m e w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e f o r f e i t u r e t h e defendant o r h i s b a i l appear and s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x c u s e h i s n e g l i g e n c e o r f a i l - u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e b a i l , t h e c o u r t , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , may d i r e c t t h e f o r - f e i t u r e o f t h e b a i l t o be d i s c h a r g e d upon s u c h t e r m s a s may be j u s t . " I f s u c h f o r f e i t u r e i s d e c l a r e d by a d i s t r i c t c o u r t and i f t h e f o r f e i t u r e i s n o t d i s c h a r q e d a s p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t s h a l l e n t e r judqment f o r t h e s t a t e a q a i n s t t h e a c c u s e d and h i s s u r e t i e s f o r t h e amount o f t h e b a i l and c o s t s of t h e p r o c e e d i n q s . " (Emphasis a d d e d . )
I t i s a g e n e r a l r u l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e
f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s -
l a t u r e , i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e , from t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e words
u s e d ; t h e c o u r t i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o add o r d e t r a c t l a n g u a g e
from t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n . S e c t i o n s 93-401-15, 93-401-16,
R.C.M. 1947; Nice v . S t a t e Board o f E q u a l i z a t i o n , 1 6 1 Mont. 448,
507 P.2d 527, 30 St.Rep. 284.
The language of s e c t i o n 95-1116, R.C.M. 1947, c l e a r l y
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t o r h i s b a i l ( s u r e t y ) must a p p e a r
w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r f o r f e i t u r e and s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x c u s e h i s n e g l i g e n c e o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e b a i l
i n o r d e r t o be g r a n t e d a d i s c h a r g e o f f o r f e i t u r e . I f s o done
w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , "may"
d i r e c t t h e f o r f e i t u r e of t h e b a i l t o be d i s c h a r g e d . The s t a t u t e i s e q u a l l y c l e a r , however, by t h e u s e of t h e word " s h a l l " i n t h e
l a s t s e n t e n c e of t h e s e c t i o n , t o r e q u i r e t h e c o u r t t o e n t e r judg-
ment f o r t h e s t a t e a g a i n s t t h e a c c u s e d and h i s s u r e t i e s f o r t h e amount of t h e b a i l and c o s t s of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i f t h e f o r -
f e i t u r e i s n o t d i s c h a r g e d w i t h i n t h e t h i r t y day l i m i t .
On March 1 4 , 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e bond f o r f e i t e d when d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a p p e a r . Four and one-half
months l a t e r d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t u n d e r a bench w a r r a n t
for his arrest. On August 1 4 , 1973, t h e bonding company f i l e d
a motion t o v a c a t e t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r f o r f e i t i n g b a i l on t h e d e -
fendant--four months t o o l a t e .
The a u t h o r i t y of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d i s c h a r g e t h e
f o r f e i t u r e of b a i l c e a s e s upon e x p i r a t i o n of t h e t h i r t y day s t a t -
utory l i m i t a t i o n period.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Finley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-finley-mont-1974.