Trujillo v. State
2016 Ark. 49
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Ramon Ballesteros Trujillo was arrested on May 31–June 1, 2015, on allegations of violent conduct against his pregnant girlfriend and her child; charged with aggravated assault and domestic-battery counts.
- District court entered a no-contact order, set bail at $25,000 cash or surety; Trujillo posted bond and was released.
- State moved to revoke release and increase bail after an alleged violation; circuit court later set bail at "$300,000 cash" and issued a bench warrant when Trujillo failed to comply.
- Trujillo filed a petition for writ of certiorari contesting (1) that cash-only bail is prohibited under the Arkansas Constitution and (2) that $300,000 cash-only bail was excessive.
- After briefing, Trujillo pleaded guilty before this court decided; the majority found the excessive-bail claim moot but addressed the constitutional question as a matter of substantial public interest.
- The majority held cash-only bail permissible under the Arkansas Constitution and Rule 9.2; two justices dissented, arguing cash-only bail violates the constitution and Rule 9.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge may require cash-only bail under Ark. Const. art. 2, § 8 | Trujillo: "sufficient sureties" requires third-party sureties; cash-only denies the constitutional right to a surety | State: "sufficient sureties" includes cash; Rule 9.2 permits cash bail and cash can be a surety | Majority: Cash-only bail is constitutionally permissible; "sufficient sureties" covers cash under Rule 9.2 and constitutional purpose (ensure appearance) |
| Whether $300,000 cash-only bail was excessive | Trujillo: $300,000 cash-only is excessive | State: Bail appropriate given allegations and court discretion | Court: Moot — Trujillo pleaded guilty; majority declines to reach the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Foreman v. State, 317 Ark. 146 (writ of certiorari appropriate to review bail proceedings)
- Duncan v. State, 308 Ark. 205 (certiorari as remedy for bail review)
- Thomas v. State, 260 Ark. 512 (money bail a last resort; least restrictive means)
- Lupo v. Lineberger, 313 Ark. 315 (certiorari corrects proceedings erroneous on the face of the record)
- Shorey v. Thompson, 295 Ark. 664 (plain, manifest abuse of discretion required for certiorari)
- Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262 (de novo review of constitutional interpretation)
- Cotten v. Fooks, 346 Ark. 130 (mootness doctrine and exceptions for substantial public interest)
- State v. Barton, 181 Wash.2d 148 (holding cash-only bail unconstitutional under Washington Constitution)
- Saunders v. Hornecker, 344 P.3d 771 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. upholding cash-only bail as constitutional)
- Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (purpose of bail is to ensure appearance; excessive bail prohibited)
- Grey v. State, 276 Ark. 331 (bail set higher than reasonably calculated to ensure appearance is excessive)