People v. Kong Bail Bond Agency

California Court of Appeal Oct 24, 1990 No. No. B045201Published

Before: Goertzen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a bail bond surety is not liable for a defendant's failure to appear for a contempt sentence that is separate and distinct from the criminal charges covered by the bond. Because the defendant appeared for the underlying criminal charges and was acquitted, the bail bond was exonerated by operation of law.

Issues

Whether a bail bond covering a criminal charge extends to a defendant's appearance for a subsequent, unrelated contempt sentence.
Whether a surety can be held liable for a defendant's failure to appear for a contempt proceeding that is separate from the original criminal action.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because we find that the contempt proceeding is a separate and distinct action from the criminal proceeding in which it occurred and not contemplated within the terms of the bond undertaking, we reverse.”

“[C]ontempt proceedings are separate and distinct and no part of the original case out of which they arise.”

[1122]Opinion

GOERTZEN, J. Appellant King Bail Bond Agency (appellant), the agent-indemnitor of American Bankers Insurance Company, appeals from: (1) an order denying its motion to vacate a previous order forfeiting bail and to exonerate the bail bond; and (2) the subsequent summary judgment on bail forfeiture.1 For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the previous order forfeiting bail and the summary judgment entered in favor of respondent County of Los Angeles (County).

Facts

On June 29, 1987, a complaint was filed, charging Mary Alice Sanchez with child detention with right to custody. (Pen. Code, § 278.5, subd. (b).) Bail was set at $250,000 and subsequently was reduced to $100,000. On December 11, 1987, Ms. Sanchez was held to answer and, on the People’s motion, the bail again was increased to $250,000. Ms. Sanchez was remanded, and her $100,000 bail was exonerated.

On December 14, 1987, appellant posted a bail bond issued by American Bankers Insurance Company in the amount of $250,000 for Ms. Sanchez’s release. It is this bail bond which is the subject of this appeal.

During the course of the jury trial, Ms. Sanchez had been instructed by the court not to address the jury and not to make any mention of her claim that her former husband had sexually molested their child. Ms. Sanchez ignored the court’s order. While being questioned by the People, the following colloquy between Ms. Sanchez and the court occurred: “The Court: What you have to do is try to control yourself, Ms. Sanchez. [¶] The Witness: He’s trying to confuse me. [¶] The Court: He’s not. [¶] The Witness: They have covered up who sexually abused my daughter, and you know it too, and they know it. And they hide the physical evidence, and whatever, [¶] Why didn’t they prosecute him? Why isn’t he in jail? [¶] Oh, no. Right. Because he’s a police officer, that’s why.”

The court found Ms. Sanchez in direct contempt of court and sentenced her to five days in jail, ordering her remanded at the end of the day and [1123]disallowing any bail. The court subsequently stayed the five-day sentence until the next day or until the jury returned a verdict.

People v. Kong Bail Bond Agency

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief