Ex Parte Heather Michele Bond
10-17-00192-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Heather Bond indicted for child endangerment for allowing her husband (stepfather) Preston Bond access to their youngest child after an earlier outcry of sexual abuse by the older child.
- Trial court set bond ($3,000) with conditions prohibiting contact with alleged victims and witnesses except under direct supervision by Child Protective Services or a CPS-approved person.
- Children were removed from Heather’s custody and placed with their father; Heather sought modification so the children could live with her and for supervised visits approved by the State rather than CPS.
- Trial court modified the condition to permit supervised contact with a State-approved chaperone; Heather filed a pretrial writ of habeas corpus challenging the supervised-visitation bond condition.
- At the habeas hearing, the State’s investigator testified Heather had attempted to manipulate the older child’s testimony and had failed to protect the children; the investigator acknowledged no other danger posed by Heather beyond that failure to protect.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial of habeas relief, upholding the supervised-visitation bond condition as reasonable and related to victim/community safety and securing Heather’s presence at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Bond condition challenged | State's argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 17.40(a) requires conjunctive findings (reasonableness + securing attendance + safety) | Bond condition invalid unless all statutory elements shown | Article 17.40 permits conditions reasonably related to securing appearance OR safety of victim OR safety of community (disjunctive) | Court follows precedent allowing conditions tied to any one statutory purpose (disjunctive) |
| Whether supervised visitation condition met statutory requirements | Condition not related to securing appearance, safety, or reasonable | Evidence showed Heather’s past failure to protect and manipulation of child-witness; supervised contact protects victims/community and helps secure attendance | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in imposing supervised-visitation condition |
Key Cases Cited
- Burson v. State, 202 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (article 17.40 allows bond conditions reasonably related to securing presence, victim safety, or community safety)
- Pharris v. State, 165 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (statutory provisions permit reasonable conditions to ensure appearance and protect community)
- Ex parte Anunobi, 278 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (standard of abuse-of-discretion review for bond conditions)
- Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (appellant bears burden to show abuse of discretion in bond condition)
- Ex parte Anderer, 61 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (distinguished: addressed bond pending appeal rather than pretrial bond)
- Ex parte Allen-Pieroni, 524 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016) (cessation: trial court abused discretion in imposing extreme bond condition of home confinement)