Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Washington County v. Goldberg Bonding, Inc.
Citations: 388 N.W.2d 20; 1986 Minn. App. LEXIS 4382Docket: C9-85-2073
Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; June 3, 1986; Minnesota; State Appellate Court
Washington County appeals an order from the Court of Appeals of Minnesota that denied its motion for the forfeiture of a $50,000 bail bond and granted Goldberg Bonding, Inc. a discharge of liability on the bond. The bond was meant to secure the appearance of defendant Eric Schmieg, who failed to show up for a scheduled omnibus hearing on July 11, 1985, leading to a bench warrant being issued. The court ordered Goldberg to show cause by July 22, 1985, why the bond should not be forfeited, stating that production of Schmieg before that date would stay the order. Prior to the July 22 hearing, Schmieg was located but resisted arrest violently, resulting in his death. Goldberg moved for discharge from liability due to Schmieg's death, while the County sought forfeiture of the bond. The court ruled in favor of Goldberg, emphasizing that the July 12 order did not declare a default or enforce forfeiture but rather allowed Goldberg an opportunity to produce Schmieg. The County argues that forfeiture should have been automatic upon Schmieg's failure to appear, citing Minn. Stat. 629.58 (1984) and federal rules regarding bond forfeiture. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, indicating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in discharging Goldberg from liability. Minnesota lacks a parallel rule of criminal procedure regarding bond forfeiture. Under Minn. R.Crim. P. 6.04, the forfeiture process for appearance bonds follows statutory law, specifically Minn. Stat. 629.58 (1984). If a person under bond fails to meet bond conditions, their default is recorded, and process is issued against them as directed by the prosecuting officer. However, forfeiture is not automatic. On July 12, 1985, the trial court did not record a bond default but instead granted Goldberg an additional 10 days to produce Schmieg, stating that if Schmieg appeared before July 22, the order would be stayed. The County did not appeal this order but later attempted to challenge it through an appeal of an October 30, 1985 order that interpreted the July order. The October order confirmed that Goldberg had until July 22 to bring Schmieg to court, and Schmieg's death on July 18 discharged Goldberg's bond obligation. The court agreed with this interpretation, noting there was no automatic forfeiture on July 11, and the trial court allowed additional time for compliance. The County's argument that Schmieg's death could not excuse Goldberg's prior failure to appear was rejected. The court found that the July 12 order, read in its entirety, indicated that producing Schmieg by July 22 constituted 'good cause' to avoid forfeiture. Consequently, Schmieg’s death also constituted good cause for not forfeiting the bond, as a bond becomes unnecessary upon a defendant's death. The trial court's decision to discharge Goldberg Bonding, Inc. from liability on the $50,000 bond was affirmed. Notably, the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the administration of justice without unduly restricting the liberty of the accused.