Ex parte Duncan

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1879 No. No. 10,464Published

Before: Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the bail amount of $113,000 was not unconstitutionally excessive, as the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless the bail is per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense.

Issues

Whether the bail amount of $113,000 is unconstitutionally excessive under the circumstances.
Whether a prisoner's inability to pay bail is sufficient evidence that the amount is excessive.
Whether jury disagreements in prior trials necessitate a reduction in bail.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Before we are authorized to interfere, the bail demanded must be per se unreasonably great, and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.”

“Undoubtedly the extent of the pecuniary ability of a prisoner to furnish bail is a circumstance among other circumstances to be considered in fixing the amount in which it is to be required, but it is not in itself controlling.”

Synopsis

Bail.—In .fixing the amount of bail, the sole purpose which should guide the court or judge, should be to cause the appearance of the accused to answer the charge against him.

Same—Habeas Corpus.—Upon an application of a prisoner, after commitment upon a writ of habeas corpus, for reduction of bail, the court or judge before whom he is brought is not authorized to interfere unless the bail demanded is per se unreasonably great, and clearly disproportionate to the offense charged. A mere difference of opinion, between the court or the judge and the committing magistrate or court, is not sufficient to justify such interference.

Same—Same.—Upon an application to reduce bail after an indictment, the guilt of the prisoner is presumed.

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.: This is an application for an order that the prisoner be let to bail “ in a reasonable amount,” and that the order of the Municipal Criminal Court, fixing the amount of his bail at the sum of $113,000, be modified in respect to the sum demanded.

The petition sets forth that the prisoner is in the custody of the Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco, and confined in the jail of said city and county, awaiting his trial upon ten indictments found against him by the grand jury, “ eight of said indictments being for forgery, one for grand larceny, and one for felony in making and publishing false returns as an officer of the Pioneer Land and Loan Association, a corporation.” That one of the indictments for forgery is upon a charge involving the sum of $2,750; another, for forgery, the sum of $1,750; the other six indictments for forgery committed in feloniously altering and uttering 3,170 shares of the capital stock of a corporation called “ The Safe Deposit Company of San Francisco ”; that the market value of these shares at the time of the finding of the indictments was about eight dollars per share, and at the present time about ten dollars per share. That upon one of the indictments for forgery of said capital stock the prisoner has been twice tried, and upon each trial the jury disagreed, and were discharged without finding a verdict. That upon said trials it was claimed by the witnesses for the prosecution, holding the certificates of stock for the forgery of which six of these indictments were found, that the prisoner had obtained upon such certificates the sum of $57,000, and no more. That the prisoner has been confined in the jail awaiting trial upon these indictments ever since the 23rd day of February, 1878, and that no trial has been sought [77]by the people upon any of the indictments other than upon the one upon which the two mistrials have occurred.

1st. The right of the prisoner to be admitted to bail upon these several indictments, none of them being for a felony capital in grade, is secured to him by the express words of the Constitution. (Art. 1, § 6.)

2nd. And it is further declared by that instrument that excessive bail shall not be required. (Id.)

3rd. The prisoner has accordingly been admitted to bail by the Municipal Criminal Court in the sum of one hundred and thirteen thousand dollars, and the general question presented by the petition here is, whether this amount is, under the circumstances, to be deemed excessive within the prohibition of the Constitution, and must therefore be reduced.

Ex parte Duncan

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief