384 S.W.3d 208
Mo.2012Background
- Kirk Jackson was arrested on charges including felony invasion of privacy after undercover operation and searches of his massage business and home.
- The circuit court set Jackson’s bond at $75,000 cash-only, with no option for a 10% cash bond.
- Jackson challenged the cash-only bond as violating Article I, Section 20 of the Missouri Constitution requiring bail by sufficient sureties.
- Missouri Rule 33.01 and related constitutional provisions authorize various methods to assure appearance, including cash or sureties, and allow denial or special conditions to protect victims or the community.
- The court addressed historical and modern interpretations of “sufficient sureties,” concluding cash-only bail can be permissible when used to secure appearance and public safety targets.
- The Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) ultimately held that cash-only bail does not violate Article I, Section 20 and that the trial court had authority to impose it in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cash-only bail complies with Missouri’s sufficient sureties clause | Jackson: cash-only violates Article I, §20 | Jackson: cash-only is permissible under history and law | Cash-only bail permitted; does not violate §20 |
| Whether the court’s use of cash-only bail serves proper bail purposes | Cash-only bail risks misuse to keep defendant detained | Cash-based bail can secure appearance and be used for restitution funds | Cash-only bail is permissible when used to secure appearance and protect victims/public; not an impermissible punishment |
| Whether the court’s discretion to set bail amount and method is appropriate under Rule 33.01 | Argues for 10% bond or non-cash surety options | Court allowed cash-only as a valid method under Rule 33.01 | Trial court’s cash-only setting within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Echols, 850 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. banc 1993) (cash as surety upheld to secure appearance)
- State v. Briggs, 666 N.W.2d 573 (Iowa 2003) (sufficient sureties include non-bondsman approaches; broad discretion)
- State v. Gutierrez, 140 N.M. 157, 140 P.3d 1106 (N.M.Ct.App.2006) (sufficient means may include various secured bonds; not limited to third-party bondsman)
- Fullerton v. County Court, 124 P.3d 866 (Colo.Ct.App.2005) (cash-only bail permissible in certain circumstances)
- Fragoso v. Fell, 111 P.3d 1027 (Ariz.App.2005) (cash-only bail acceptable under state constitutional framework)
- Ex parte Singleton, 902 So.2d 132 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (cash-based bail accepted in certain contexts)
- Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.2000) (debated scope of sufficient sureties; historical definitions broadened)
- Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 835 N.E.2d 5 (Ohio 2005) (constitutional interpretation of sufficient sureties; scope beyond third-party bonds)