California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Amwest Surety Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.4th 915, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 (Cal. App. 1997):
This section immediately follows and was formerly part of section 1305, dealing with the consequences of a defendant's nonappearance, jurisdiction, vacation of forfeiture and exoneration of bond. "The law traditionally disfavors forfeitures and this disfavor extends to forfeiture of bail. [Citation.] Thus, sections 1305 and 1306 must be strictly construed in favor of the surety to avoid the harsh results of a forfeiture." (People v. Surety Ins. Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 22, 26,
Page 33
"This case is controlled by these statutes [ 1305, 1306], the provisions of which 'must be strictly followed or the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. [Citation.] ... [p] The course set out in a jurisdictional statute must be precisely followed or the court loses jurisdiction and its actions are void. [Citation.]' [Citations.] 'It is well established in the case law that Penal Code sections 1305 and 1306 are subject to precise and strict construction.... " '[W]here a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, follow a particular procedure, or subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limitations is in excess of its jurisdiction.' [Citations.]" ' [Citations.]" (People v. Topa Ins. Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 296, 300, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 167.)
Within these limits, section 1305.1 nevertheless allows a court to "excuse a bailee's appearance in advance of a hearing if it believes sufficient excuse exists to do so. [Citation.]" (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 13, 19, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 807.) There, the court explained:
"This statutory provision creates a limited exception to the general rule that a failure to appear requires the court to order forfeiture of the bail with prompt notice to the surety. [Citation.] The theory behind this exception is that '[i]f bail forfeiture is required immediately upon the first nonappearance of a defendant, no matter how valid his reason for nonappearance be, such defendant [56 Cal.App.4th 922] would be subjected not only to having his bail forfeited but the additional penalty of possibly being required to pay another premium for its reinstatement.' [Citation.] Accordingly, the court can continue a hearing and still retain its jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture at a later time as long as it has a reason to believe that a sufficient excuse exists for the nonappearance. [Citation.] 'In most situations involving a section 1305, subdivision (b) [now 1305.1] determination the only reasons before the trial court are the evidence or representations furnished by defendant's counsel. The cases demonstrate that the courts have cooperated with defense counsels' requests and have liberally relied on their representations.' (People v. National Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 302, 306 [142 Cal.Rptr. 98].)" (People v. Ranger Ins. Co., supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 19, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 807, italics added.)
This authority raises and answers two questions: What showing must be made to the court of sufficient excuse for nonappearance, and what record must document such a showing? The latter question is more easily answered: The entire record may be considered, and the excuse no longer need be expressly set out in the minutes. The 1969 amendment to section 1305 "abolished the requirement that the existence of an excuse must actually exist and be set forth in the minutes. [Citations.]" (County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 948, 950, 212 Cal.Rptr. 69.) Rather, for policy reasons, a continuance should be allowed where the trial court is enabled given enough information to find sufficient excuse, even if the details of same are not specified in the minutes:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.