Benefield, Ex Parte Brent, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 983

Brent Benefield was arrested two months after his four‑month‑old son died from blunt‑force head trauma; charged with injury to a child causing serious bodily injury or death.
Initial bail set at $1,000,000; after habeas hearing the trial judge reduced bail to $200,000; the court of appeals affirmed; Benefield sought discretionary review which was refused.
At the bail hearing Benefield presented testimony about strong local ties, childcare responsibilities, no meaningful criminal history, and evidence undermining the State’s case (including medical questions and alternative suspect theory).
The State argued Benefield was a flight risk because the charged offense exposed him to up to 99 years or life imprisonment.
The concurring statement by Judge Cochran raised broader constitutional and policy concerns about pretrial bail practices, emphasizing bail’s primary purpose (ensuring appearance), the Excessive Bail Clause, and empirical evidence that nonmonetary conditions and PR release can secure attendance and public safety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should consider weakness of State's case as part of "nature and circumstances" when setting bail	Benefield: trial‑court should weigh State’s weak evidence and alternative suspect evidence when setting bail	State: seriousness of charge (potential 99‑year sentence) supports high bail; offense level is relevant	Court refused discretionary review; concurring opinion urges that weakness of State’s case is a legitimate factor to consider in bail decisions but did not change outcome
Whether court of appeals imposed an improper standard requiring direct proof that judge intended to keep Benefield detained	Benefield: appellate court created impossible standard by requiring proof the trial judge intended pretrial detention	State: challenged sufficiency of habeas showing and supported bail as reasonable to assure appearance/public safety	Petition denied; concurrence criticizes appellate review as insufficiently meaningful and stresses need for robust appellate oversight of bail decisions

Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (constitutional purpose of bail is assurance of defendant's presence at trial)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (pretrial incarceration harms defendants’ ability to prepare defense and counsel against delay)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (permissible pretrial detention when Congress' procedures satisfied; balance of liberty and safety)
Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277 (historical statement that accused should not be absolutely compelled to imprisonment prior to final judgment)
United States v. Barber, 140 U.S. 164 (public interest favors release pretrial when appearance can be secured)
Ex parte Milburn, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 704 (recognizance of bail secures attendance of accused)
Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (defendant bears burden to show bail is excessive on habeas)
Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 (bail‑setting factors and primary purpose of bail)
Ex parte Vasquez, 558 S.W.2d 477 (example of excessive bail where amount functioned as oppressive detention)
Ex parte Beard, 92 S.W.3d 566 (bail is excessive if greater than reasonably necessary to serve legitimate governmental interests)