State v. Sheriff
21 A.3d 808
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Flavio Bail Bonds, LLC posted bonds for defendant Sheriff on multiple cases; Sheriff failed to appear and bonds were forfeited with a six-month stay of execution under §54-65a(a).
- Flavio located Sheriff in Jamaica two days before trial; extradition was not pursued by the chief state's attorney, who declined to initiate extradition proceedings.
- Flavio filed a Practice Book §38-23 petition for compromise or release from obligation, arguing good cause due to efforts to locate Sheriff and the attorney's decision not to extradite, and suggesting a conflict of interest.
- Trial court held it lacked authority to reduce an amount of forfeiture via compromise and could only release the surety from the entire obligation upon good cause; applied Taylor v. Taintor (1872) standard.
- Court concluded Flavio did not establish good cause under Taylor because Sheriff’s nonappearance resulted from his own wilful flight, not act of God, law, or obligee, and the chief state's attorney’s decision not to extradite did not create a duty to extradite.
- Writ of error dismissed; opinion affirms trial court’s denial of relief to Flavio and notes no applicable conflict-of-interest basis to change the result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor applies as the governing standard for §38-23 good cause | Flavio urges a multifactor approach beyond Taylor | State defends Taylor as proper rule | Taylor applies |
| Whether Flavio showed good cause under Taylor | Efforts to locate Sheriff in Jamaica and non-extradition decision show good cause | No act of God; Sheriff wilfully fled; no good cause shown | No good cause under Taylor |
| Whether conflict of interest in the chief state's attorney supports good cause | Conflict of interest could support release | Conflict not relevant to good cause; did not cause fugitive’s absence | Conflict not supporting good cause; not relevant to Taylor analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1872) (release of surety only for act of God, act of obligee, or act of law; supports Taylor rule)
- Taintor v. Taylor, 36 Conn. 242 (1869) ( Connecticut version of Taylor rule; surety relief require cause under common law)
- State v. Nugent, 199 Conn. 537, 508 A.2d 728 (1986) (applies Taylor rule in determining surety's power to apprehend principal)
- Maltas v. Maltas, 298 Conn. 354, 2 A.3d 902 (2010) (interpretation of practice-book provisions and good cause standard)
- Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620, 6 A.3d 60 (2010) (adherence to prior precedents; stare decisis in procedural rules)
- Umatilla County v. Resolute Ins. Co., 8 Or.App. 318, 493 P.2d 731 (1972) (illustrates conflict-of-interest-like considerations in surety release)