84 So. 3d 1288
La.2012Background
- State appeals district court's setting aside bond forfeiture judgments; a three-judge panel of the court of appeal reversed with one dissent; the court of appeal declined to refer for reargument before a panel of at least five judges; commercial surety sought review in the Louisiana Supreme Court; La. Const. art. 5, § 8(B) prescribes a five-judge panel for modification/reversal when there is a dissent in civil matters; the court of appeal relied on historical practice treating bond forfeiture reviews as civil but potentially criminal for jurisdictional purposes; the issue is whether the five-judge requirement applies to this review; the Supreme Court vacates and remands for reargument before a five-judge panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Five-judge panel required when there is a dissent | State argues §8(B) mandates five judges if any dissent occurs | Court of appeal argues practice favors three-judge review regardless of civil/criminal label | Yes, five-judge panel required |
| Timeliness and authority to refer for reargument | State contends error should be corrected despite delay in raising issue | Kaercher/Agrawal authority not to bar referrral after delay | Error to deny five-judge reargument; remand for five-judge panel |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kaercher, 380 So.2d 1365 (La.1980) (bond forfeiture review treated as criminal for jurisdictional purposes; not controlling on reliance here)
- State v. Hendricks, 5 So. 24 (La.1888) (earlier authority recognizing civil nature but criminal-jurisdictional framing)
- State v. Sandoz, 246 So.2d 21 (La.1971) (cited for historical treatment of bond forfeiture matters)
- Agrawal v. Rault Club Ten, Inc., 482 So.2d 184 (La.App. 4 Cir.1986) (referral timing rule not applicable to this issue)