People v. Safety National Casualty Corp.
62 Cal. 4th 703
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Defendant Elshaddai Bent was charged with felony DUI; bail set at $25,000 with a surety (Safety National).
- A pretrial conference date (April 29, 2011) was set on the record while Bent was present; Bent failed to appear on April 29.
- The trial court declared bail forfeited and issued a bench warrant; the surety later sought and received an extension to move to vacate the forfeiture.
- Safety National moved to vacate the forfeiture arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Bent was not legally required to appear at the April 29 pretrial.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding section 977 did not affect bail forfeiture under Penal Code §1305; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court addressed whether failure to execute a written waiver of personal presence under §977(b)(1) makes a defendant’s nonappearance at a scheduled pretrial proceeding a basis for bail forfeiture under §1305(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §977(b)(1)’s "all other proceedings" requirement makes a defendant’s absence at a scheduled pretrial hearing a "lawfully required" appearance under §1305(a) that can support bail forfeiture | §977’s personal-presence requirement includes scheduled pretrial hearings; absent a written waiver, nonappearance is "lawfully required" and justifies forfeiture | §977 should be read in light of due process case law to require presence only at critical proceedings; it should not expand §1305 forfeiture exposure for noncritical hearings | Yes. §977(b)(1)’s default "all other proceedings" creates a "lawfully required" appearance for §1305(a); without a written waiver or sufficient excuse, forfeiture is proper |
| Whether actual notice or a court order is required for an absence to be "lawfully required" under §1305(a) | The statute and precedent permit forfeiture when the date was set in open court and the defendant had notice; written waiver otherwise required | Safety National argued §977-based requirement would unfairly allow forfeiture absent actual notice | The Court held that a scheduled hearing set in open court where defendant had notice qualifies; moreover §1305’s "sufficient excuse" safeguard protects absent defendants |
| Whether constitutional due-process limits on presence constrain §977’s application to bail forfeiture | The People argued §977 is a legislative scheme distinct from constitutional presence rules and applies for statutory purposes including bail forfeiture | The surety argued §977 should be confined by due-process principles so it does not trigger forfeiture for noncritical proceedings | The Court rejected narrowing §977 for bail purposes; statutory presence requirements can be broader than constitutional due-process protections |
| Whether the Court of Appeal’s contrary interpretations (e.g., People v. North Beach Bonding Co.) remain good law | The People urged affirmance of §977’s application to §1305 forfeitures | Safety National relied on appellate precedents excluding §977 from bail forfeiture contexts | The Supreme Court disapproved cases to the extent they rejected §977’s application and reversed the Court of Appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gutierrez, 29 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 2003) (discusses §977 and the constitutional right to presence)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004) (treats bail bond as contract ensuring defendant's appearance)
- People v. Jackson, 13 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 1996) (explains limits on statutory waivers of presence and that statute may impose stricter presence requirements than constitutional minima)
- People v. Isby, 30 Cal.2d 879 (Cal. 1947) (articulates due-process test for when defendant's presence is required)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (federal precedent on when presence is unnecessary because it would be useless)