Bail Bond Agent Blog

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mayfield, 2003 WL 21246377 (Pa. Super. May 30, 2003) the defendant violated a condition of his bail by committing an assault shortly after release. The trial court forfeited the bond. The appellate court reversed. The court held that in considering remission of forfeiture, a court must consider the willfulness of the defendant’s breach, the cost, inconvenience and prejudice to the government and any explanation or mitigating circumstances. The Court of Appeals did not think the facts supported forfeiture, but at least the willfulness test should have been met since upon his release the defendant went to his girlfriend’s house and broke her nose. Because there were no apparent mitigating circumstances, in effect the court held that a bail bond cannot be forfeited unless the government can show prejudice from the defendant’s breach. There was a dissenting opinion.

In Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 2005 WL 2403814 (Pa. Super. September 30, 2005) the trial court refused to consider the equitable factors relevant to remission of forfeiture because the surety’s efforts did not have a substantial impact on the defendant’s recovery. The Court of Appeals held that the three equitable factors should be considered, along with the bondsmen’s role in recovering the defendant. Upon consideration of the factors, however, the Court of Appeals held that no remission was justified and affirmed the trial court’s result. The factors were: (1) willfulness of the defendant’s breach, (2) cost, delay and inconvenience to the government and the court, and (3) any explanation or mitigating factors. In this case, the defendant acted willfully and there was prejudice to the government and the court. There were no mitigating factors and thus no basis for relief from the forfeiture.

Tags: Bail Bond Case Law //