319 Conn. 288
Conn.2015Background
- Defendant Francis Anderson, committed to a forensic hospital after an acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect, was on a promise-to-appear for a prior felony when charged with a new assault. The trial court set a $100,000 monetary bond in the new case.
- Anderson could not pay the bond and was therefore transferred from the hospital (Whiting) to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction; the court acknowledged no flight risk existed and monetary bond was unnecessary to secure appearance.
- The trial court expressly set the high bond to ensure public safety — i.e., to effect Anderson’s pretrial detention because of perceived dangerousness to staff and other patients at Whiting.
- Anderson challenged the bond as violating his state constitutional right to bail under article first, § 8, arguing monetary bail may be set only to ensure appearance and cannot be used to effect preventive detention.
- The dissent (Palmer, J., joined by Rogers, C.J., McDonald, J.) concluded that Connecticut’s right to bail historically and constitutionally limits monetary bail to securing appearance and forbids using bail as preventive detention without the procedural safeguards required for detention schemes like the federal Bail Reform Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may set monetary bail solely to detain a non–flight-risk defendant for public safety (preventive detention) | State: §54‑64a(b) permits consideration of public safety and thus courts may set bond to ensure others' safety | Anderson: Article first, §8 guarantees bail; monetary bail may be set only in amount necessary to ensure appearance — using bond to detain violates constitutional right to bail | Dissent: Preventive detention via an excessive monetary bond violates Connecticut’s constitutional right to bail; monetary bail's historical purpose is to secure appearance only |
| Whether courts may use nonfinancial conditions and revoke bail to address dangerousness | State: Courts may impose conditions to protect safety; revocation possible under §54‑64f when statutory standard met | Anderson: Nonfinancial conditions are appropriate; but monetary bond to effect detention is impermissible | Court (prior precedent Ayala): Courts may impose nonfinancial conditions and revoke bail for violations, but that authority does not authorize preventive detention via financial conditions |
| Whether Connecticut legislative changes (1990 §54‑64a) authorize financial detention for safety | State: Legislative language allowing consideration of safety implies authorization to set financial conditions for safety | Anderson: Legislature did not intend to authorize monetary preventive detention and did not provide Salerno‑type procedural safeguards | Dissent: Legislative silence on procedural safeguards and historical practice support interpreting §54‑64a as authorizing nonfinancial conditions for safety, not monetary preventive detention |
| Whether historical and common‑law origins of bail permit preventive detention by bond | State: Preconstitutional practices and statutes allowed securing good behavior; courts may consider safety | Anderson: Historical statute and common law show bail’s sole purpose was securing appearance; peace‑bond statutes are distinct and narrow; history disfavors preventive detention | Dissent: Historical materials, case law, and long legislative practice show monetary bail was tied to appearance; preventive detention by bond is incompatible with Connecticut constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (upholding federal preventive‑detention statute but emphasizing required procedural safeguards)
- State v. Ayala, 222 Conn. 331 (Conn. 1992) (approving nonfinancial conditions and bail revocation for violations but disavowing preventive detention by bond)
- State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264 (Conn. 1970) (describing fundamental purpose of bail as ensuring accused's presence)
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1951) (holding bail excessive if set higher than necessary to assure appearance)
- Mello v. Superior Court, 370 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 1977) (criticizing preventive detention by setting excessive bail)
- In re Underwood, 9 Cal. 3d 345 (Cal. 1973) (stating bail’s purpose is to assure attendance, not protect public safety)
- People ex rel. Sammons v. Snow, 340 Ill. 464 (Ill. 1930) (invalidating $50,000 bail set to keep petitioner detained)
- State ex rel. Corella v. Miles, 262 S.W. 364 (Mo. 1924) (holding bail fixed only to secure appearance; excessive bail used to detain is unconstitutional)
- Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 (Mass. 1993) (finding state statutory scheme effecting preventive detention via bond violated due process without Salerno‑style safeguards)