State v. Brooks

Minnesota, Respondent, STATE BROOKS, petitioner, Appellant.

Wesley

No. C1-98-2388. of Minnesota.

Supreme Court

Jan. March

As Modified monetary

Mbits bail that can be satisfied only by cash deposit a of the full amount by the court. set Article Section 7 of provides the Minnesota Constitution persons “[a]ll before conviction shall be * * * Ap- bailable sufficient sureties .” Brooks, pellant, Wesley Eugene asserts a County Scott District Court order setting “cash violates provi- bail” this ap- sion Minnesota’s Constitution. On peal, the Appeals Minnesota Court of held only” “cash bail constitutional. Because we conclude bail violates Constitution, Minnesota’s we reverse.1 case in dispute. facts are not 27, 1998, Brooks, August On a resident of Lake, Minnesota, Prior began one-year sentence to be served electronic home McCloud, Kelly monitoring. Samuel A. Vince One condition of Brooks’ Grif- fitts, Shakopee, for home appellant. momtoring was that he abstain from using any controlled substance. Because a Hatch, Attorney Michael A. Minnesota urinalysis taken as Brooks was about to General, Paul, Harbinson, St. Thomas J. begin his sentence positive tested for co- Groh, County Attorney, Scott Michael J. caine, he was asked to take second test County Attorney, Assistant Scott Shako- September on 1998. This test also pee, for respondent. positive, indicating that Brooks had been Stuart, John M. Minnesota State Public using a controlled substance while on home Defender, Wolf, Marie L. Asssistant State monitoring. Because Brooks failed the Defender, Public Minneapolis, for amicus test, police second officer telephoned curiae State Public Defender. Brooks at his spoke residence and with him at approximately 8:30 a.m. on Septem- Washburn, Director, Gina G. Executive ber 1998. The officer informed Brooks Association, County MN Attorneys Robert that he at was Brooks’ residence return Stanich, General, A. Attorney Assistant St. jail. Mm to Brooks told officer that he Paul, for amicus MN County curiae Attor- would “be but up,” while the officer neys Association. waited, Brooks fled. 22, 1998,

On September County Scott charged authorities escape Brooks with custody 609.485, from under Minn.Stat. OPINION 4(1) (1998). 2(1), subd. Brooks was subse- quently apprehended Florida. No- On ANDERSON, PAUL H. Justice. 26, 1998, County vember Scott authorities overriding Florida, issue in this case traveled to Tampa, took Brooks whether the Minnesota Constitution pro- custody authorities, into from Florida address, 1. The “cash term bail” used practice by not courts, which some opinion release, practice setting refers permit as a condition of an monetary bail deposit amount that can satisfied accused to make a cash only by deposit a cash of the full amount set amount less than the full amount include, by the court. does not and we do set the court. elapsed. days gener- been received had not to Minnesota. Four returned Mm 125.01, 125.03, ally, App.P. Minn.R. Civ. later, appeared November Brooks 126.01, response, In its the state hearing, hearing. At for his bail if argued that the motion to strike was bail,” requested “cash specifically state appeals then the court of did not granted, flight a represented that Brooks stating jurisdiction appeal. to the have consider $6,000, the judge set bail risk. The argued particularly, More the state that gross for a misde- statutory maximum is- being appealed the order was because meanor, it be further ordered that the judge sued first and because the 629.471, subd. Minn.Stat. only. cash See judge refused to reconsider that second (1998). his on De- At next order, appeal perfected not was unless 7, 1998, judge, the same cember before first judge’s setting it included the order or to be bail reduction Brooks moved judge’s subsequent bail and that only cash The court denied post allowed bond. declining order to reconsider bah. the motion. appeals unpublished in court of an only” 9, opinion held that “cash bail does not later, on Brooks days Two December the Minnesota See violate Constitution. hearing omnibus/pretrial for an appeared Brooks, 153793, at *2 State v. 1999 WL judge. hearing, a At this before different 23, 1999). March While (Minn.App. again asked the court to reconsider Brooks only de- recognized court that bail only bail and moved the cash order ser- prives a defendant commercial bond bond, arguing post allowed to a court vices, phrase it held that “sufficient unconstitutional. that cash not constitutional sureties” does create a remain argued that bail should The state bond. See id. The court right post (1) represented because Brooks: security, form the “[t]he reasoned that (2) risk, flight already had served high sufficiency, pro- as much as its is for the from which he had ab- one-year sentence the court and is not a matter of tection of (3) sconded, receiving a substan- the defendant.” Id. constitutional judge tial income. The second demed court, Brooks appeal On to our asserts bond, say- post motion to allow Brooks to again appeals that the court of erred and ing already matter was decided Article argues that cash bail violates not court of that he would act I, 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. Section aby to “reverse the decision made appeals sitting of the bench same member I.

level.” We must &st decide whether the in this moot. case is presented issue appeal with the Brooks filed notice of decide actual controver will Courts arguing that cash appeals sies; therefore, appellate courts will dis Both Brooks and the is unconstitutional. if event occurs appeal miss an as moot an to the submitted informal briefs state grant of relief that renders the effective Although only transcript or- court. Lezer Ta impossible. State ex rel. v. relied Brooks was from dered and hash, 571, 571, 268 Minn. 128 N.W.2d hearing before the second the December this rule ex exception An refer- judge, the state’s brief contained capable repetition, an ists when issue is two the first hearings ences to the before judicial review. See re yet will evade from the Brooks moved to strike judge. (Minn.1989). Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d in brief facts not contained state’s those doc exception to the mootness While district court record submitted to flexible, have stated trine is appeal. appeals issue, court on court of us must be order for to decide granted Brooks’ motion before receiv- “functionally justiciable.” then See State (Minn.1984). Rud, although peri- ing response the state’s justiciable if functionally have “A timely response od in which a could case * * * * Const, n .tradi- contains raw material cient record sureties art. judicial I, §§ tionally associated effective Both Brooks and the state base decision-making.” Appellate Id. courts arguments their regarding permissibil- presented also whether the issues consider ity interpretation bail on their “important public are issues statewide I, of the bail clause contained Article significance that should be decided imme 7 of Section the Minnesota Constitution. diately.” Id. The Bail sec Clause of article argument, attorney At oral Brooks’ provides tion 7 persons “[a]ll before posted informed the court that Brooks shall conviction be bailable sufficient $6,000 no longer cash and is sureties, except capital offenses when custody. Although appeal Brooks’ to this proof is evident or presumption moot, may, consequence, a court as be great.” Resolution of the cash bah

reach the merits of his case because cash clause, issue turns on of interpretation this capable repetition, bail orders are of on particularly phrase more “suffi review, likely evade.judicial to and an issue cient sureties.” Issues of constitutional significance. of statewide Less than a interpretation Arens, questions are of law are year ago, pre in State v. we were reviewed this de sented with cash court novo. See In re bail issue which Blilie, (Minn.1993). 877, originated Lyon 494 County. 586 N.W.2d 881 N.W.2d (Minn.1998). 131 That this unambigu issue has When constitutional is language ous, year reached court twice in from one is language effective as written jurisdictions two different indicates that and no of further rules construction should issue is both significant capable of Holm, applied. be See Kernan v. 227 repetition. Additionally, cash bail is 92, 89, 327, (1948). Minn. 34 N.W.2d 329 important public issue sig of statewide If the language is ambiguous, the court upon nificance court should beyond must look the words for indi- other pretrial are, rule. Most issues cia intent. v. Wynkoop Carpenter, definition, short-lived and failure to decide (Minn.1998). 422, 425 this issue could a continuing have adverse Both Brooks and the state argue that impact on those defendants who are unable the language at unambiguous. issue is Indeed, post to failure Brooks, relying plain on the meaning of address this issue create class “surety,” argues the word that the phrase defendants constitutional claims but “sufficient in- sureties” demonstrates the remedy. Finally, no pre this case is tent that be post defendants allowed to us, it functionally justiciable sented to is bond as an alternative to cash. con- because the record contains the raw mate trast, the state focuses the word “suffi- necessary rial judicial for effective deci cient” and phrase asserts that the “suffi- sion-making.

cient sureties” is preserve intended to II. district court’s broad discretion. The state that, argues constitution, in adopting the Having concluded that “ meant that framers ‘sufficient’ indi- orders are within the exception to the cates that the [district] [is] to deter- doctrine, mootness we must now consider mine what was sufficient under the circum- whether such orders are prohibited stances.” The state then asserts that use Minnesota. Minnesota’s Constitution ad- plural word dresses bail in two different clauses. Arti- “sureties” instead bail, I, bond, or cle section 5 provides that demonstrates “that “excessive required” bail shall not be than and article more one method of bail was avail- section 7 guarantees that and that persons “[a]ll able” the court has the discretion before conviction shall be bailable suffi- to determine which method is used. applicable to freemen were punishments History Bail at money See id. fines. Supreme Court has The United States concept surety of bail evolved out of is to ensure of bail purpose stated that traveling necessity shortage when a and submission appearance an accused’s persons magistrates resulted in accused Reynolds v. judgment. See the court’s jailed for tri- being lengthy periods before — States, U.S. —, 30, 80 S.Ct. United & M. al. See Daniel J. Freed Patricia (1959).2 have We also L.Ed.2d Wald, (1964); 1-3 Bail in the United States of bail in that this is a articulated Thomas, Jr., Reform, Bail Wayne H. Mastrian, Minnesota. See State system and America 11 The bail (1963) N.W.2d personal surety emerged its rebanee on (holding purpose of arrest and “[t]he prevent pretrial excessive detention. Per- assure [an accused] confinement n friend, * n reputable referred to a surety sonal * * * trial presence [while] at his relative, n * neighbor custody into whose * permit his purpose of bail [t]he Thom- accused would be released. See trial can otherwise if release as, supra, system This allowed the However, while both the guaranteed”). custody be released into the accused to and the Minne Constitution United States surety the would then be personal who from Constitution defendant sota for the responsible appearance accused’s bail, the of the protections excessive at trial. See id. The bail amount was be Constitution are broader Minnesota normally equal monetary penalty, to the so I, 7. This difference cause of article fled, if he presumed guilty the accused was fully to un analysis critical to our and personal surety the responsi- and became difference, this critical some derstand monetary penalty. ble for the See Car- history of of bail is neces knowledge the bone, supra, personal the 520. Because Therefore, it exam important to sary. responsible the surety payment for of origin development the of bail and its ine strong had a incentive penalty, surety the Anglo-American jurisprudence. See appeared. to make sure the accused attention analysis, particular historical id. the given to be to derivation needs system changed Anglo-Saxon phrase “sufficient interpretation of the the replaced corporal punishment when sureties.” system for most criminal offenses. “bot” Anglo-Saxon invention de- Bail was an availability Bail was in- id. at 521. See monetary fine or signed complement restricted, cor- creasingly part because guar- which was intended system, “bot” punishment afforded an accused poral of an accused antee both the 521- greater to flee. See id. at incentive conviction. upon the “bot” payment uniformity of resulting A lack of Carbone, Seeing Through the See June of the Statute prompted administration Rediscovery This Emperor’s New Clothes: id. at 523. 1275. See Westminster of bailable, the Principles in Administration but Basic statute defined who was of 517, Bail, categories confusing Syracuse L.Rev. 519-20 statute’s were 526, id. at 529. Never- complicated. of See developed Bail when most 1, deposit of ing a sum bail bond Boyle, 342 U.S. 72 S.Ct. 2. See also Stack (1951) money subject United States as addi- where the to forfeiture serves L.Ed. Supreme Court held that ac- presence tional assurance an right figure higher trial is condi- than to release before Bail set at [t]he cused. adequate upon giving the accused's reasonably tioned to fulfill amount calculated he trial and sub- assurance that will stand Eighth under the purpose is "excessive” guilty. mit to sentence if found Like Amendment. practice securing the oaths of ancient (1951) (internal citations U.S. 4-5 342 omitted). responsible persons as sureties for to stand accused, practice requir- modern result, theless, govern English Pennsylvania the statute was to adopted its constitu- provision tional making for the next five centuries. See id. almost all law offenses Carbone, supra, bailable. See at 531. at 523. system, Because bah with some Although initially the American colonies modification, patterned is largely after the accepted many aspects English bail English system, American system, eventually away courts—at least some shied from century until the nineteenth confusing of Westminster’s ca- Statute —utilized But, personal surety system. as modern tegorization who was bailable. Car- evolved, society increasingly became dif- bone, Instead, supra, at 529. these colo- ficult to find persons reliable known nies redefined the to bail. See id. both the courts and the accused. See example, adopted Pennsylvania, Thomas, result, supra, at 12. As a provided Great Law of personal surety system evolved into the “all Prisoners shall be Bailable Suffi- commercial system bondsman that exists Sureties, Offenses, cient for capital unless id. today. See the proof presumption where is evident or added). great.” (emphasis Id. at 531 This noted, previously As general pur- ultimately incorporat- language, which was pose of bail is to ap- ensure accused’s Constitution, Pennsylvania ed into the be- pearance and judgment submission every came the model for almost state However, of the court. when viewed in its adopted constitution after 1776. See Car- context, historical it becomes clear that the Const, bone, 532; supra, Penn. art. section 7 Bail Clause has a broader pur- Consequently, approximately two- essence, pose. govern- the clause limits constitutions, including thirds state power ment prior detain an accused Minnesota’s, contain similar or identical trial. The clause is intended to Carbone, generally language. supra See accused rather than the courts. is this significance at 532. Given the historical of broader that distinguishes the Pennsylvania’s bail provision, further ex- granted I, rights under Article Section 7 of ploration origin of is its warranted. the Minnesota Constitution from the bail granted rights Eighth under the Amend- Quakers, The Pennsylva- who founded ment of the United States Constitution. nia, had an aversion to the inefficient bail - De-emphasizing Monetary Bail The Bail system that had evolved under the Statute Act 1966 and Minnesota Rule Lermack, of Westminster. See Paul The Reform of Criminal Procedure 6.02 Recognizances Law in Colonial Penn- of (1977). sylvania, L.Q. Temp. An important development recent in our They had own wanting their reasons for system was the Bail Reform Act of judicial limit the and scope power of insti- 1966. The United Congress, noting States Having tutions. See persecuted id. been emphasis on monetary bail and recog- they in England, had greater sympathy for nizing resulting on impact adverse powerful detained defendants than for a poor, passed the Bail Reform Act judiciary. Indeed, id. See the state’s de-emphasize monetary the use of Penn, founder, William had been arrested and to encourage judges to consider non- in England for preaching unlawful and was monetary release conditions. See 18 jailed period for a significant time. See (1998); § U.S.C. see also 2 Charles Quakers id. Other being remembered Torcía, Procedure, E. Wharton’s Criminal jailed contempt (13th ed.1990). for for offenses such as § 302 provides The Act refusing to remove their hats. that, See id. possible, pretrial when release should Quakers among were also the first to be personal recognizance. ordered on emphasize punish- rehabilitation instead of § 3142. If personal U.S.C. release on 478; ment in their laws. See id. at see recognizance is deemed for ineffective as- Carbone, also supra, 531 n. suring appearance 68. As a a defendant’s or is inim- de-emphasize mone- judge is to erates the intent safety, then the public ical tary See id. conditions. impose additional de-emphasize the Act is to thrust of critical Minnesota Caselaw This Act the mod- became

monetary bail. Torcia, case which our There one P. 6.02. See el Minn. R.Crim. for the Bail directly court has addressed § 302. supra at I, 7. in article See State v. Clause nonmonetary condi- adopts Rule 6.02 Pett, 253 Minn. 92 N.W.2d 205 Act in the those enumerated tions like Pett, we faced the issue of whether bail pretrial re- for preference establishes I, denied under section 7 could be article See 8 monetary no conditions. lease with following capital pun- the abolishment McCarr, Practice- Henry Minnesota W. See id. at 92 N.W.2d at 206. ishment. (2d Procedure, § 15.5 Law and Criminal clause, placed we interpreting 6.02, 1. ed.1990); P. subd. Minn. R.Crim. great importance the fact that Minneso- However, of additional con- imposition its part ta had modeled this constitution will be if such release ditions is allowed Pennsylvania in the Consti- language after will not rea- public safety or “inimical of 431-32, id. at tution. See of the sonably per- the appearance assure Const, 207; Penn. art. see also 6.02, P. R.Crim. required.” son Further, we stated: additional conditions possible subd. Four the Minnesota constitution was listed, When being instructed to judges are drafted, provisions of the constitu- following condi- the first of “impose prior to Minne- reasonably tions of states admitted will as- of release which tions available, we must sota were assume for trial person of the sure the they carefully were studied If hearing.” single Id. no condition or ' ** * It must assumed compared. the rule allows appropriate, deemed provision adopted was care- that the condi- any the use of combination among the various selected from tions, fully which are as follows: subject, provisions dealing with (a) person in the care and Place the bail found in the constitutions states designated person supervision already to the Union. admitted supervise agreeing to organization Minn, person; 432, Pett, at 207. 253 at (b) travel, on the asso- Place restrictions has Pennsylvania Supreme Court . during the place ciation or of abode right to before trial is held that the bail release; period Pennsylva- specifically guaranteed (c) appear- of an Require the execution v. See Commonwealth nia Constitution. in an amount set ance bond 213, 244, 245 Caye, 447 Pa. 290 A.2d sureties, court with sufficient solvent Lemley, (1972); v. see also Commonwealth cash other suffi- deposit or the or (1862). Likewise, 362, in 2 Pitts. 363 thereof; security in or cient lieu that, following the abolishment Pettwe held (d) any deemed Impose other condition Minnesota, all in capital punishment necessary ap- to assure reasonably Pett, at are crimes bailable. including a con- required, as pearance 433, this applying 208. 92 N.W.2d at re- person that requiring dition Pett, we facts before us in rule to the custody specified

turn to after hours. our constitution concluded “that under in except court had no discretion By echoing [district] those conditions enumerat- Id. 435, at bail.”3 Id. Act, fixing the amount of in Bail Reform Rule 6.02 reit- ed holding to the dis- application of Pett Although appear statement It was not in case. trict court’s actions that discretion in sharply curtail a district court’s conditions, on a district interpret limitation intended to be broad we do not setting bail discretion. to be court’s strictly. We believe that it meant so 1997) Nov.12, holding The Pett is critical *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. N.W.2d decision).6 analysis (unpublished because it establishes that all crimes in Minnesota are bailable. Examination of how these other courts history also establishes that only have addressed issue bail Pennsylvania bail clause is useful when provide guidance does not definitive Bail in interpreting our Clause us,, resolving the ease before but the eases supports in turn that conclusion in helpful are some respects. While the government Minnesota’s Bail Clause limits holdings by three states reached their dif- power protects accused.4 routes, they only ferent all held cash Foreign Jurisdictions impermissible. important It is also to note in courts Ohio and Tennessee that there no Given is Minnesota author- stated that the apparent reason for cash ity directly addressing validity of cash effect, was, deny orders orders, only bail it is exam- appropriate to in violation of their state constitutions. ine other how states with identical or simi- Minnesota’s Constitution Prohibits Cash provisions lar constitutional have ad- Only Bail dressed this Although issue. more than two-thirds of state constitutions contain Our next step is to determine provisions identical or similar to Minneso- phrase whether the “sufficient sureties” ta’s, states, appellate courts three ambig used Minnesota’s Constitution is Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee, have dealt uous and it prohibits whether Supreme with this issue.5 The Ohio Court bail. We phrase conclude is un plain meaning relied on the of its constitu- ambiguous and it prohibits tion as well as criminal rule similar to bail. We base our conclusion on the plain Minnesota’s Rule 6.02 to hold cash meaning “surety.” of the word Our con bail unconstitutional. See State ex rel. supported clusion is by the definition of Hendon, Jones v. 66 Ohio St.3d surety, its usage, historical our decision in N.E.2d 543-44 The Louisiana Pett, holdings and the of other courts. Appeals plain Court of relied on the mean ing “surety” of the word as derived from Dictionary definitions demonstrate both state statutes to reach the same result. historic contemporary consistency Golden, See State 546 So.2d 503 the meaning “surety.” the word denied, (La.Ct.App.1989), writ. 547 So.2d English Dictionary defines “sure- Oxford (La.1989). contrast, the Tennessee ty” as engagement formal “[a] entered Appeals Court of held cash bail im into, bond, guarantee, a pledge, security permissible statutory interpreta based given for the fulfillment an undertak- tion, but the constitutionality addressed of ing.” Compact Edition the Ox- of cash in dicta. See Bail English Dictionary 285 At Lewis ford Bond Co. v. General Sessions Court the time the Minnesota was Constitution of County, C-97-62, drafted, Madison No. 1997 WL “surety” defined as: ignores significance 4.The dissent Although of Supreme our the Delaware Court has Pett, appeal in In affirmed a placed great decision Pett. we bail order on im- State, portance Miller validity the court did not address the on the Minnesota constitutional of cash bail. 1994 WL 679746 framers' choice to model the section Bail Nov.30, (Del. 1994) (unpublished opinion). provision Clause after a similar in the Penn- Pett, sylvania Constitution. See 253 Minn. at court, 6. As in the case before this the Lewis Accordingly, 92 N.W.2d at 207. in order mootness, court faced issue of but held to determine the of the section Bail that the issue evaded the mootness doctrine Clause, important it is to understand the ori frequently because it involved cases that arise gin Pennsylvania's of bail clause. Lewis, likely and are to evade review. See WL *3. 711137 at appearance. Accordingly, who is cused’s is bound for another One who must, guarantee princi- and called the of “sufficient sureties” liable is primarily least, very an engages protect to be answerable accused’s access pal. One who debt, default, miscarriage or to But helpful parties. for the third the better another; undertakes to do surety one who definition of in the context of the failure of act in the event of the expansive. some section 7 Bail is more Clause it, security for it to do and as It array another a broad encompasses methods being done. to assurance that an ac- provide adequate requires. will the court appear cused as Burrill, M. New Law Dictio- 2 Alexander a definition cre- Applying narrower would (N.Y.1850). The nary Glossary, 959 and to If judges ate a rule vulnerable abuse. substantially is not dif- modern definition discretion to specify have unlimited Dictionary Law defines Black’s ferent. bah, would, acceptable they form of for pri- who person is “[a] the word both as * * * example, payable only be able set bail performance of for the marily liable by real If the accused in such property. obligation” and formal “[a] another’s any property, not own real he is bond, case does assurance; pledge, guarantee, esp., he being essence denied bail when an security the fulfillment of given provide adequate by be able to assurance Dictionary Black’s Law undertaking.” ed.1999). (7th result, some other As a the ac- means. These definitions 1455-56 is right cused’s constitutional violated. “surety” person assuming a third denote can Similarly, another and the assur- bail orders responsibility deny something being Surety done. used bail to those accused who ance for array encompass providing can broad of undertak- have other means of sufficient person, provide a third that ings, surety. reasoning often This consistent with performance for the adequate appellate assurance that used other courts obligation. impermis- an bail orders have held sible. that the state agree is here amicus, Attorney’s County Minnesota meaning of about the Our conclusion Association, surety that has a broad mean- phrase sup- is also “sufficient sureties” ing, disagree argument with their but we ported by holding Pett our meaning gives broad district phrase’s Pennsyl- reliance roots in to limit the form of discretion 7 Bail construing the section vania law. surety As we acceptable to cash Clause, guar- we held that our constitution concluded, surety as used previously have Eighth than the protection antees broader Bail is for in Minnesota’s section 7 Clause States Constitu- Amendment United protection of the accused rather than all are baila- crimes providing tion further conclude that sure- the court. We Pett, reaching this conclusion ble. encompasses array options ty broad Pennsylvania’s history on the we relied security satisfy the mone- and forms of clear intent to which evinces a bail clause necessary by tary amount deemed government power limit Therefore, it appearance. court to assure prior to bail to trial. accused’s 7 Bail improper interpret conclude Finally, to the extent that we allowing as the court to limit an Clause prohibits the the 7 Bail Clause that to cash accused setting monetary amount bail court from aby deposit broadly is con that can be satisfied Construing surety court, by the con- in the full amount of bail set The usage. sistent with its historical pur- the . our conclusion is consistent with early cept surety, inception from its de-empha- pose of Rule 6.02. Rule 6.02 its in the modern bail England to use encourages release monetary bail and concept of a third sizes system, has involved the conditions. We on the least restrictive assuming for an ac- party responsibility 354 however, ers, ad-

emphasize, Supreme this case well the U.S. Court as only the issue of the constitutional- dresses ago this court have and long often stated ity of cash bail and does not involve primary the purpose bail is to release conditions. ensure defendant’s judgment

submission to the of the court. reasons, foregoing (9 For Milburn, Pet.) See Ex Parte 34 U.S. 7 of Minne hold Article Section (1835) 704, 710, (“A 9 L.Ed. recogni 280 sota Constitution a court from prohibits bail, case, zance of in criminal is taken to setting a bail monetary amount that can be secure the due attendance of party deposit satisfied a cash the full — accused”); States, v. Reynolds United amount bail set the court. There —, 30, 32, 80 S.Ct. 4 U.S. L.Ed.2d 46 fore, rights Brooks’ under constitution (1959) (“The purpose of bail is to insure were violated because bail limit his order the defendant’s appearance and submis posting ed him to cash bail the full for court”); judgment sion to the of the State court, thereby amount of set Mastrian, 58, 59, v. N.W.2d restricting post by provid his * * * (1963) (“The purpose of bail ing surety. alternative forms of sufficient permit is to if ap [defendant’s] release We reverse decision of the court of pearance at trial can guaran otherwise be appeals and remand this matter to the teed.”). any district court for further proceedings necessary for the actions that court to Bail reconciles the defendant’s submis- be consistent with this opinion. sion to the court with liberty his interest. — States, Bandy U.S. —, United

Reversed and remanded. (1960) (bail 81 S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d 218 is “right the device that reconciles the STRINGER, (dissenting). Justice freedom trial and during pending judicial * n * review possibility with the that the respectfully I Although agree dissent. I himself’); defendant flee or hide majority’s with the determination that this 463, 471, Shetsky, re 239 Minn. (cid:127)matter is not moot capable because (1953) (The review, repetition yet purpose of bail is disagree evades I “to with the conclusion that relieve the imprisonment accused of Const, § violates the Minn. art. I 7. The the state of the detaining burden of him constitution not prohibit imposi- does pending the trial and at the same time n * * tion of cash ruling bail and the presence to insure his trial majority significantly limits the discretion any call the court way delay without of Minnesota district appropri- courts as to ing, impairing, unduly burdening ate bail. justice.”). administration of “Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate majority’s reasoning seems to flow both the defendant’s in pretrial interests from what I faulty believe to be two as- liberty society’s in assuring interest sumptions. First the claim that the sole presence the defendant’s at trial.” Donald Const, bail under Minn. I art. Verrilli, Jr., Note, Eighth B. Amend § 7 is to from defendant Right ment and the to Bail: Historical power court’s to detain before trial. Perspectives, 82 Colum. L.Rev. 329- reaching conclusion majority looks interpretation In its of Minn. who, Pennsylvania Quakers after Const, art. I majority has recast experiencing persecution by English courts, “reconciling mechanism” into the no Pennsylvania drafted the state con- judicial stitution to limit tion that bail is scope pow- the “intended to the er. Quak- Whatever the concerns of the accused rather than the courts.” Under Moreover, construal, ties. sufficient” defined as bail histori- the cushion that this number, quality, of such “[ajdequate; liber- defendant’s cally provided between force, necessary a given or value as is has now power detain ty and a court’s Dictionary Law purpose.” Black’s protec- for a a shield defendant’s become The sureties” cer- term “sufficient Not of courts. against power tion tainly prohibit does not rulings previous misconstrue our does this court, that the logically, requires More purpose ignores its fundamental on bail-it defendant, releasing a must set bail before of a defendant assuring appearance reappear to assure that the defendant will in court. courtroom, provides the trial to achieve that court with discretion result. in footnote four majority asserts enough importance I not on place do escape Appellant going fled Florida history in in- Pennsylvania’s constitutional jail gross for a misdemeanor and constitution’s terpreting reasonably district court could not be as- Pennsylva- I bail clause. notable of his next in court. sured affirm the of the court of would decision places law, majority such nia appeals holding imposed reliance, has never ruled that cash trial not by the court does violate no rul- violates its With constitution. constitution and was within the discretion the ma- Pennsylvania, on the issue ing trial court. bail is jority’s conclusion that seems an unwar- prohibited Minnesota leap logic.

ranted

Second, analysis of the majority’s language the consti-

“sufficient sureties” usage of “sure-

tution overlooks common meaning of “sufficient.”

ty” well as majority argues that both definitions Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of formal “surety,” including assur- “[a] bond, ance; guarantee, or esp., pledge, of an given for the fulfillment

security ROBINSON, Appellant. Dameion Dictionary Law undertaking,” Black’s (7th ed.1999), person connote a third No. C6-98-1849. another’s assuming responsibility for obli- however, “Surety,” in sense gation. Supreme Court of Minnesota. guarantee must refer'to form 13, 2000. Jan. may appear- to assure the impose defendant, whatever form ance be, as that is the interest U.S. re- Court and court have

Supreme Reyn at stake. See

peatedly held

— olds, U.S. —, 32; at Mastri 80 S.Ct.

an, 59, 122 Minn. at N.W.2d mandate, no constitutional

There is thus logical construction

policy interest “sufficient sureties” by construing

served par- to third

to mean defendant’s access

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Brooks

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Mar 15, 2000

Citation: 604 N.W.2d 345

Docket Number: C1-98-2388

Court Abbreviation: Minn.