State v. Joshua Anderson
162 A.3d 1249
| Vt. | 2016Background
- Eastern Bail Bond Agency posted a $5,000 surety bond for defendant after arraignment; bond obligated Eastern to pay if defendant failed to appear.
- Defendant missed multiple court dates; the court scheduled a forfeiture hearing for May 22, 2015 after a missed sentencing date.
- Eastern alleges it received informal notice that the May 22 hearing would not go forward because defendant was in treatment and that it never received the signed May 22 forfeiture order; it first learned of forfeiture from a June 3 letter from the court.
- The trial court forfeited bail on May 22 (order made final in 10 days) and later denied Eastern’s motions to vacate the forfeiture and to reconsider without holding a hearing or resolving Eastern’s factual claims.
- Eastern appealed, arguing among other things that it lacked proper notice and had made good-faith efforts to locate the defendant; the State argued some issues were unpreserved.
- The Vermont Supreme Court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying Eastern a hearing to resolve factual allegations material to the forfeiture decision and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eastern) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bail forfeiture was proper where Eastern alleges it received incorrect information and no signed forfeiture order | Eastern: forfeiture improper because it was told the hearing would be placed on hold, did not receive the May 22 order, and promptly tried to locate defendant once informed | State: notice was sent and Eastern failed to appeal; trial court’s forfeiture discretion | Held: Trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing; remanded for factfinding because Eastern’s allegations could affect willfulness, efforts to secure appearance, and prejudice to the State |
| Whether the trial court adequately exercised discretion in forfeiting bail without resolving factual disputes | Eastern: court failed to consider relevant facts (rehabilitation info, lack of notice) | State: court acted within discretion based on docket notice and forfeiture procedures | Held: Court must consider all relevant facts and resolve disputes before forfeiture; summary denials were error |
| Preservation of additional arguments (contract void; equal protection) | Eastern: raised contract-void and equal-protection claims on appeal | State: those issues were not preserved below | Held: Contract and constitutional arguments not preserved and are not addressed on appeal |
| Whether statutory forfeiture process requires notice and hearing before final forfeiture | Eastern: statutory notice and hearing requirements implicate need to decide factual claims | State: relied on statutory process and docket entries indicating notice | Held: Statute allows forfeiture after hearing and notice to bailor; here insufficient fact resolution required remand for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ovitt, 178 Vt. 605 (discussing preservation of issues)
- State v. Brown, 179 Vt. 22 (forfeiture decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Marsh, 173 Vt. 531 (surety’s responsibility to track defendant’s court dates)
- State v. Ahearn, 137 Vt. 253 (court must exercise discretion and consider relevant facts)
- State v. Mottolese, 199 Vt. 470 (factors relevant to bail forfeiture and amount determination)