State v. Mottolese
199 Vt. 470
| Vt. | 2015Background
- Defendant Joseph Mottolese was released on a $35,000 bond procured by surety Allstate Bail Bonds; he was allowed to reside in New York.
- Defendant became incarcerated in New York on unrelated charges before a required Vermont court appearance (final calendar call).
- Defendant failed to appear in Vermont; Vermont moved to forfeit the bond and the court issued a warrant.
- Allstate sought a surety warrant to retrieve defendant in New York and later asked for a reduction of forfeiture to cover extradition costs; the trial court denied the surety-warrant request and ordered full forfeiture.
- The trial court justified full forfeiture on deterrence and preservation of surety obligations; Allstate appealed seeking remission less extradition and delay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration in another jurisdiction bars relief from full bond forfeiture | State: forfeiture is required when surety fails to produce defendant; reducing forfeiture undermines obligations | Allstate: incarceration in NY prevented production; surety acted in good faith and sought to recover defendant; forfeiture should be reduced to extradition/delay costs | Court: incarceration out-of-state can justify reduction; denial of reduction was abuse of discretion — remit bond less extradition and delay costs |
| Whether surety’s good faith efforts to secure defendant mitigate forfeiture | State: absent production, surety remains liable; obligations require ensuring appearance | Allstate: timely sought surety warrant, offered to defray costs, had no duty to supervise defendant’s private conduct | Court: surety’s attempts and inability to recover defendant due to detainer weigh in favor of relief |
| Whether defendant/surety acted willfully in nonappearance | State: forfeiture required for nonappearance regardless of cause | Allstate: nonappearance was not willful because confinement prevented appearance and residence in NY was permitted | Court: nonappearance due to incarceration (not flight) is not willful; favors remission |
| Proper measure of forfeiture amount when remission granted | State: full forfeiture needed to deter sureties and protect State | Allstate: equitable to limit forfeiture to reasonable costs of returning defendant and delay expenses | Court: forfeiture should bear reasonable relation to government’s costs; order remanded to calculate extradition and delay costs and remit remainder |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cardinal, 147 Vt. 461, 520 A.2d 984 (Vt. 1986) (monetary bail’s constitutionally legitimate purpose is assuring presence; forfeiture is not punitive)
- State v. Marsh, 173 Vt. 531, 789 A.2d 939 (Vt. 2001) (forfeiture affirmed where defendant was arrested after missed hearing; suggested relief might apply if incarceration preceded appearance)
- Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1872) (historic rule denying surety relief where defendant taken into custody by another jurisdiction when surety failed to keep defendant within control)
- United States v. Nell, 515 F.2d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (federal rule permits discretion to set aside bail forfeiture; relevant factors include willfulness, surety participation, and government prejudice)
- United States v. Gambino, 17 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 1994) (adopting multi-factor approach to bail forfeiture relief under federal rule)