STATE v FINLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12652 I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A H O R F H F OTN 1974 THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, RICHARD JAMES FINLEY, Defendant, and INLAND BONDING COMPANY, Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Donald R. Matthews argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana Thomas J . Beers, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General, argued, Helena, Montana Richard P. Heinz argued, Polson, Montana Submitted: Decided : F i l e d :APR 1 8 1974 March 2 2 , 1974 1 8 1974 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s an a p p e a l by a bonding company from a n o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lake County, r e f u s i n g t o v a c a t e a b a i l bond f o r f e i t u r e . Richard F i n l e y , defendant i n t h i s a c t i o n , plead g u i l t y t o a c h a r g e of f i r s t d e g r e e a s s a u l t . H e w a s r e l e a s e d when h i s s u r e t y , I n l a n d Bonding Company, p o s t e d t h e i r $2,500 b a i l bond. He was o r d e r e d t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t on March 1 4 , 1973, f o r s e n t e n c i n g . On March 1 4 , 1973, d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a p p e a r f o r s e n t e n c i n g and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e b a i l bond f o r f e i t e d . Subse- q u e n t l y , d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d on a bench w a r r a n t J u l y 25, 1973, t a k e n t o P o l s o n , Montana, s e n t e n c e d , and i s now i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n . On August 1 4 , 1973, t h e bonding company f i l e d a motion t o vacate t h e order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f e i t i n g b a i l . w a s denied. The motion From t h i s d e n i a l , t h i s a p p e a l i s b r o u g h t . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: (1) Does t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r b a i l bonds t h i r t y d a y s a f t e r f o r f e i t u r e ? (2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n deny- i n g t h e bonding company's motion t o v a c a t e t h e p r i o r f o r f e i t u r e order? The q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w a r e e s s e n t i a l l y q u e s t i o n s of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The a p p l i c a b l e s e c t i o n of t h e Montana C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e Act i s s e c t i o n 95-1116, R.C.M. 1947. T h a t s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f b a i l and f o r f e i t u r e when t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e n o t performed a s f o l l o w s : " ( a ) When t h e c o n d i t i o n s of b a i l have been performed and t h e accused h a s been d i s c h a r g e d from h i s o b l i gations i n t h e cause, the court s h a l l return t o him o r h i s s u r e t i e s t h e d e p o s i t o f any c a s h , s t o c k s o r bonds. I f t h e b a i l is real e s t a t e , t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t i f y , i n w r i t i n g , t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r and t h e l i e n of t h e b a i l bond on t h e r e a l e s t a t e s h a l l be d i s c h a r g e d . I f t h e b a i l i s a w r i t t e n u n d e r t a k i n g o r a commercial s u r e t y bond, i t s h a l l be d i s c h a r g e d and t h e s u r e t i e s e x o n e r a t e d . " ( b ) I f t h e a c c u s e d d o e s n o t comply w i t h t h e cond i t i o n s o f t h e b a i l bond, t h e c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l e n t e r an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g t h e b a i l t o be f o r f e i t e d . " I f s u c h f o r f e i t u r e i s d e c l a r e d by a d i s t r i c t c o u r t , n o t i c e of such order of f o r f e i t u r e s h a l l be m a i l e d f o r t h w i t h by t h e c l e r k of t h e c o u r t t o t h e a c c u s e d and h i s s u r e t i e s a t t h e i r l a s t known address. " ( c ) I f a t any t i m e w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e f o r f e i t u r e t h e defendant o r h i s b a i l appear and s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x c u s e h i s n e g l i g e n c e o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e b a i l , t h e c o u r t , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , may d i r e c t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e b a i l t o be d i s c h a r g e d upon s u c h t e r m s a s may be j u s t . " I f s u c h f o r f e i t u r e i s d e c l a r e d by a d i s t r i c t c o u r t and i f t h e f o r f e i t u r e i s n o t d i s c h a r q e d a s p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t s h a l l e n t e r judqment f o r t h e s t a t e a q a i n s t t h e a c c u s e d and h i s s u r e t i e s f o r t h e amount o f t h e b a i l and c o s t s of t h e p r o c e e d i n q s . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) I t i s a g e n e r a l r u l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e c o u r t i s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e , from t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e words u s e d ; t h e c o u r t i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o add o r d e t r a c t l a n g u a g e from t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n . R.C.M. S e c t i o n s 93-401-15, 93-401-16, 1947; Nice v . S t a t e Board o f E q u a l i z a t i o n , 1 6 1 Mont. 448, 507 P.2d 527, 30 St.Rep. 284. The language of s e c t i o n 95-1116, R.C.M. 1947, c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t o r h i s b a i l ( s u r e t y ) must a p p e a r w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s a f t e r f o r f e i t u r e and s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x c u s e h i s n e g l i g e n c e o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e b a i l i n o r d e r t o be g r a n t e d a d i s c h a r g e o f f o r f e i t u r e . I f s o done w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , "may" d i r e c t t h e f o r f e i t u r e of t h e b a i l t o be d i s c h a r g e d . The s t a t u t e i s e q u a l l y c l e a r , however, by t h e u s e of t h e word " s h a l l " i n t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e of t h e s e c t i o n , t o r e q u i r e t h e c o u r t t o e n t e r judgment f o r t h e s t a t e a g a i n s t t h e a c c u s e d and h i s s u r e t i e s f o r t h e amount of t h e b a i l and c o s t s of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i f t h e f o r f e i t u r e i s n o t d i s c h a r g e d w i t h i n t h e t h i r t y day l i m i t . On March 1 4 , 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e bond f o r f e i t e d when d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a p p e a r . Four and one-half months l a t e r d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t u n d e r a bench w a r r a n t for his arrest. On August 1 4 , 1973, t h e bonding company f i l e d a motion t o v a c a t e t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r f o r f e i t i n g b a i l on t h e d e fendant--four months t o o l a t e . The a u t h o r i t y of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o d i s c h a r g e t h e f o r f e i t u r e of b a i l c e a s e s upon e x p i r a t i o n of t h e t h i r t y day s t a t utory l i m i t a t i o n period. I f t h e r e i s a s a t i s f a c t o r y excuse f o r t h e a b s e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h i r t y d a y s i s s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r t h e s u r e t y t o discover t h e excuse. A l o n g e r p e r i o d would o n l y p r o l o n g t h e c a u s e and unduly burden t h e c o u r t . I t i s c l e a r from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words used t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t be f o r e c l o s e d from r a i s i n g a n e x c u s e a f t e r t h e t h i r t y day s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s h a s e x p i r e d . S i n c e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e o r d e r o f f o r f e i t u r e a f t e r t h e t h i r t y d a y s , t h e second i s s u e becomes i r r e l e v a n t . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. Justice W concur: e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
