State v. TWO JINN, INC., 150 Idaho 264

Bardsley was charged with felony DUI, driving without privileges, and false personation; bail set at $10,000 and Two Jinn posted a surety bond.
Bardsley wore an alcohol-monitoring device as a bond condition; he stopped paying for and downloading data from the device after denial of removal.
Bond forfeiture was entered after Bardsley failed to appear on March 24, 2009 and extradition proceedings ensued.
Two Jinn discovered Bardsley was in federal custody in San Diego and attempted to resolve the matter within the 180-day forfeiture window.
Two Jinn posted a $50,000 bond in California to secure Bardsley’s release and later surrendered him after he was released, prompting a hearing on setting aside forfeiture and exonerating the bond.
The district court denied Two Jinn’s motion to set aside the forfeiture and exonerate the bond; Two Jinn appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly exercised discretion to exonerate the bond.	Two Jinn asserts the court abused discretion by not considering mitigating factors.	State contends the court properly weighed willfulness, costs, and deterrence.	No abuse of discretion; factors supported denial of exoneration.
Whether the district court correctly applied the statutory and procedural standards for exoneration under former I.C. § 19-2927/IVCR 46.	Two Jinn argues standards support exoneration given Two Jinn’s efforts.	State argues strict enforcement due to willful nonappearance.	Standards applied correctly; no alteration of 180-day automatic exoneration rule.

State v. Quick Release Bail Bonds, 144 Idaho 651 (Ct.App.2007) (set factors for exoneration and discretionary review of bond forfeiture)
State v. Fry, 128 Idaho 50 (Ct.App.1994) (factors for exoneration include willfulness, costs, and public interest)
State v. Two Jinn, Inc., 148 Idaho 874 (Ct.App.2010) (authority affirming district court’s denial of exoneration and forfeiture relief)