Commonwealth v. Hann
622 Pa. 636
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Ricky Lynn Hann was arrested (Sept. 2010) for assault and released on his own recognizance; the victim, Lisa Souders, obtained a PFA order against him.
- Hann was later arrested for violating the PFA and remained free; in Feb. 2011 he was arrested on new kidnapping charges and bail was set at $100,000.
- Professional bondsman Paul Weachter posted bail as surety; the bond included standard conditions (appear, obey orders, no intimidation/retaliation, refrain from criminal activity).
- The day after release, Hann killed Souders and then himself; the Commonwealth conceded no monetary prosecutorial cost remained because Hann was deceased.
- Commonwealth petitioned for forfeiture under Pa.R.Crim.P. 536(A)(2)(a); trial court ordered full forfeiture after applying Ciotti/Mayfield factors; Superior Court reversed, holding the Commonwealth must show demonstrable monetary prejudice.
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated Superior Court, held that Rule 536 does not require a monetary-loss showing and remanded for a new forfeiture proceeding consistent with a multi-factor, case-by-case analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth must show monetary loss to support bail forfeiture after breach of bond conditions | Rule 536 and precedent do not require proof of financial loss; prejudice can be non‑monetary (inconvenience, inability to prosecute, public interest) | Forfeiture should be limited to recouping costs of recapture/prosecution; absent pecuniary loss, forfeiture is improper and punitive | The Court held Commonwealth need not prove monetary loss; Rule 536 permits consideration of non‑monetary prejudice and a case‑by‑case multi‑factor inquiry |
| Proper framework and burden allocation for remission of forfeiture under Pa.R.Crim.P. 536(A)(2)(d) | Forfeiture is initially a matter for trial court discretion; once Commonwealth establishes breach, defendant/surety should bear burden to show justice does not require full enforcement | Defendant argued Surety should not be held responsible absent proof of monetary prejudice; emphasized constitutional concerns about bail purposes | The Court adopted a multi‑factor approach (borrowing and expanding Ciotti/Mayfield and Korecky factors) and held that after the Commonwealth proves breach by a preponderance, the defendant/surety bears the burden (preponderance) to show remission is justified |
| Whether bondsman status and supervision affect forfeiture outcome | Commonwealth: professional sureties assume business risk and may reasonably be held to account; bondsman status weighs in favor of forfeiture | Bondsman/amicus: imposing large forfeitures for crimes committed while on bail chills bail industry and effectively makes bondsmen guarantors of behavior | The Court held bondsman status and degree of supervision are relevant factors that tend to weigh in favor of forfeiture but must be weighed with other factors |
| Whether trial courts must apply a talismanic monetary‑loss requirement from Superior Court precedent | Commonwealth: strict monetary‑loss rule is inconsistent with Rule 536 and prior state precedent permitting forfeiture without demonstrated pecuniary cost | Superior Court/defense: relied on Mayfield language requiring demonstrated detriment as controlling | The Court rejected the Superior Court’s strict monetary‑loss rule, directing courts to perform a holistic, discretionary analysis under Rule 536 |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 827 A.2d 462 (Pa. Super. 2003) (articulated Ciotti‑style three‑part test applied by Superior Court)
- United States v. Ciotti, 579 F. Supp. 276 (W.D. Pa. 1984) (formulated the three‑factor test: willfulness, cost/inconvenience/prejudice, mitigation)
- Commonwealth v. Chopak, 615 A.2d 696 (Pa. 1992) (trial court discretion to order forfeiture; partial forfeiture allowed absent prosecution costs)
- State v. Korecky, 777 A.2d 927 (N.J. 2001) (synthesized non‑exclusive multi‑factor list for forfeiture decisions)
- United States v. Kirkman, 426 F.2d 747 (4th Cir. 1970) (forfeiture should bear reasonable relation to governmental cost/inconvenience)