Ex Parte Ruef (1908) · DecisionDepot

Ex Parte Ruef

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jun 30, 1908 No. Crim. No. 154.Published

Before: THE COURT. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A judge may not impose extra-statutory requirements for bail, such as mandating real estate ownership or excluding relatives as sureties, as the prisoner has a constitutional right to bail upon providing sufficient sureties as defined by the Penal Code.

Issues

Whether a judge may impose additional qualifications for bail beyond those prescribed by the Penal Code.
Whether a judge may arbitrarily refuse to accept relatives as sureties or require real estate ownership for bail.
Whether the court must follow statutory requirements for bail regardless of personal discretion.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The admission to bail, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption great, is a constitutional right which the accused can claim, and which no court and no judge can properly refuse.”

“Neither friends nor relatives are excluded by the statute; and the court has no power to arbitrarily refuse them for the sole reason that they are relatives or friends.”

Synopsis

PETITION for writ of habeas corpus to secure admission to bail.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Henry Ach, Frank J. Murphy, and M. C. Chapman, for Petitioner.

[469]

THE COURT.

It appears in this ease that bail has been fixed in certain criminal proceedings pending in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco under several indictments against defendant. It further appears that the judge of the superior court in whose department the proceedings are pending, while examining sureties offered by defendant on his various bonds, declined and refused to accept anyone as surety unless such surety was the owner of real estate equal in amount to the sum for which he desired to qualify upon such bond, and for which he was to become liable; and further, that such judge refused to hear or consider the financial responsibility of any relative of the prisoner, or to receive any such relative on the bond, no matter what amount of property such relative might possess in his own name. It further appears that the hearing as to the qualification of the proposed sureties on the several bonds has been heretofore continued from time to time by the judge of said court against the protest and objection of the prisoner, the last hearing being continued from June 27th to July 3d, 1908. It further appears that the judge of said court directed his reporter not to take down any of the proceedings or testimony on the examination of such sureties in the proceedings before him.

This is an application for a writ of

habeas corpus,

in order that the prisoner may be admitted to bail upon giving bonds with good and sufficient sureties as required by law. Our constitution provides that all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties unless for capital offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption great. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 6.) The constitution of the United States provides that excessive bail ought not to be required. (Amendment 8.) The admission to bail, except in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption great, is a constitutional right which the accused can claim, and which no court and no judge can properly refuse.

(People

Tinder,

19 Cal. 542, [81 Am. Dec. 77].)

Ex Parte Ruef

AI Brief

Synopsis

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief