2014 Ohio 2926
Ohio2014Background
- Consolidated mandamus actions by relators Anthony Sylvester and Woodrow L. Fox/Woody Fox Bail Bonds challenging Crim.R. 46(A)(2)’s cash 10% deposit on bail as to whether it violates Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.
- Relators claim the 10% cashDeposit requirement prevents bail by sufficient sureties and thus infringes the right of defendants to be bailable by sufficient sureties.
- Clerks of courts in Wayne County and Licking County allegedly refused to accept surety bonds where bail was set with a 10% cash deposit, prompting the actions.
- The court discusses the historical development of bail in Ohio, including Smith v. Leis and prior cases recognizing a right to bail by sufficient sureties.
- The court ultimately holds Crim.R. 46(A)(2) unconstitutional to the extent it permits cash-only bail, and requires accepting full-amount surety bonds if cash is used, while denying damages for Fox Bail Bonds due to immunity.
- Writs of mandamus are granted; damages are denied; officials continue to operate under the challenged rule unless and until relief is implemented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Crim.R. 46(A)(2) violate Article I, §9 by allowing cash-only bail? | Sylvester argues cash-only bail denies sufficient sureties. | Respondents contend Crim.R. 46(A)(2) is within rulemaking authority. | Yes; unconstitutional to require cash-only bail. |
| If Crim.R. 46(A)(2) is unconstitutional, must a court accept an alternative surety bond? | Sylvester/relators assert court must accept sureties as alternative when cash is required. | Respondents argue discretion lies with the court under Crim.R. 46. | Yes; must accept a full-amount surety bond if cash is used. |
| Do relators have standing and entitlement to mandamus to compel acceptance of surety bonds? | Relators have a right to stop cash-only practice and protect bail by sufficient sureties. | Respondents challenge standing; action should be resolved by other means. | Relators have standing; mandamus appropriate. |
| Are damages available to Woody Fox Bail Bonds for the challenged practice? | Fox seeks damages for lost business due to cash-only practice. | Defendants have political-subdivision immunity and acted within official duties. | Damages denied; immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio 2005-Ohio-5125) (cash bail not authorized; right to bail by sufficient sureties remains)
- Jones v. Hendon, 66 Ohio St.3d 115 (Ohio 1993) (cash-only bail restricts access to a surety; the right to be bailable by sufficient sureties)
- Baker v. Troutman, 50 Ohio St.3d 270 (Ohio 1990) (bail cannot be conditioned by use of deposited cash to pay unsatisfied fees)
- Locke v. Jenkins, 20 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1969) (absolute right to bail in noncapital cases; discretion limited)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (standing and mandamus standards for extraordinary relief)