2015 WY 34
Wyo.2015Background
- Three Fremont County detainees (Amos, Dwyer, Saunders) could not post cash-only bail set by circuit courts and remained jailed pending trial; amounts ranged from $500 to $100,000.
- Each petitioner filed writs seeking release and a state-wide ruling that cash-only bail is impermissible under the Wyoming Constitution and W.R.Cr.P. 46.1.
- Wyoming Supreme Court converted habeas petitions to petitions for writ of certiorari due to the constitutional importance and the issue’s likelihood to evade review.
- Central legal question: whether the constitutional phrase “bailable by sufficient sureties” (Art. 1 §14) and Rule 46.1 permit courts to set cash-only bonds.
- Court reviewed dictionary, historical, and interstate authority on the meaning of “surety” and the purpose of bail; emphasized Wyoming’s purpose of bail is to secure appearance at trial, not primarily to protect the accused.
- Court held cash-only bail is permitted under Article 1, §14 and W.R.Cr.P. 46.1(a), subject to the constitutional prohibition on excessive bail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “shall be bailable by sufficient sureties” prohibits cash-only bail | "Sufficient sureties" means a third-party surety/bondsman; cash-only bonds are not a surety and thus unconstitutional | "Surety" includes cash or other security; courts may use cash-only bail to secure appearance | Court held "sufficient sureties" is broad and may include cash-only bail; constitutional excessive-bail limit still applies |
| Whether habeas corpus was proper vehicle for relief | Petitioners sought direct Supreme Court review of constitutional question via habeas | State argued habeas is limited to jurisdictional claims; proper remedy is appeal/writ | Court converted petitions to writs of certiorari and proceeded on merits |
| Whether historical meaning of "surety" excludes cash | Petitioners relied on older definitions implying third-party bondsman | State and several authorities showed historical definitions and practice included various forms of security including cash | Court found historical usage and frontier practicalities support a broad meaning including cash |
| Whether W.R.Cr.P. 46.1 permits cash-only bail | Petitioners argued Rule language mirrors constitution and should be read narrowly | State argued Rule, read in pari materia, grants judicial discretion to impose conditions (including cash) to assure appearance | Court held Rule 46.1(a) permits cash-only bail consistent with the constitutional interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) (modern purpose of bail is to assure presence at trial; excessive bail violates Eighth Amendment)
- State v. Brooks, 604 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. 2000) (held cash-only bail unconstitutional under Minnesota constitution)
- State v. Briggs, 666 N.W.2d 573 (Iowa 2003) (interpreted “sufficient sureties” broadly to permit cash bonds)
- Fragoso v. Fell, 111 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (upheld cash-only bail; emphasized frontier practicality and broad meaning of surety)
- State v. Gutierrez, 140 P.3d 1106 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (adopted broad definition of "sufficient" to allow judge discretion, including cash)
- State v. Jackson, 384 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. 2012) (permitted cash-only bail; discussed historical context)
- Vigil v. State, 563 P.2d 1344 (Wyo. 1977) (noted challenges to bail generally moot after conviction; articulated Wyoming view on bail’s function)