Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hot Springs Bail Bond v. State
Citations: 90 Ark. App. 370; 206 S.W.3d 306; 2005 Ark. App. LEXIS 299Docket: CA 04-1104
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; April 6, 2005; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Josephine Linker Hart, Judge, affirmed the circuit court's decision to uphold the forfeiture of a $500 bail bond issued by appellant Hot Springs Bail Bond following the defendant's failure to appear in court for a public intoxication charge. Appellant contended that the forfeiture should be voided due to law enforcement's failure to make reasonable efforts to apprehend the defendant, as outlined in Ark. Code Ann. 16-84-201(b). The defendant, Jose Alberto, had been arrested for public intoxication and subsequently failed to appear in district court, leading to a warrant for his arrest. The circuit court found that the failure to enter this misdemeanor warrant into the NCIC or ACIC systems did not equate to a lack of reasonable effort by law enforcement. The court emphasized that according to statutes, if a defendant fails to appear, the district court must issue an order for the surety to show cause within 120 days regarding the bond's forfeiture. The statute also stipulates that if a defendant is not apprehended within that timeframe, the bail bond may be forfeited without further notice. Precedent indicates that upon a defendant's failure to appear, the entire bond amount is subject to forfeiture, and the surety may present evidence against this forfeiture. Thus, the circuit court upheld the bond forfeiture in this case. Under the cited statutes, the surety must demonstrate why a bail bond should not be forfeited. If the surety can establish good cause for the defendant’s failure to appear before judgment is made, the district court may reduce the surety's liability. A law enforcement agency's inadequate efforts to apprehend the defendant might provide grounds for the court to find good cause, potentially leading to exoneration of part of the surety's liability. However, the statute does not guarantee that such failure by law enforcement will automatically be deemed good cause. The appellant failed to present sufficient evidence indicating that the inclusion of the arrest warrant for a misdemeanor failure to appear in the NCIC or ACIC databases would have constituted a reasonable effort to apprehend the defendant. Consequently, the circuit court's decision to uphold the bond forfeiture is affirmed. The defendant is referred to by multiple names, and there is a discrepancy between the stipulated date of the arrest warrant issuance and the date shown on the warrant.