State v. Musgrove

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Seybert

    229 Mont. 183 (Mont. 1987)   Cited 6 times
    In Seybert, this Court recognized that the primary purposes of bail in a criminal case is not "to punish a defendant or surety, nor to increase the revenue of the State," Seybert, 745 P.2d at 689, 44 St.Rep. at 1882 (quoting State v. Musgrove (1980), 187 Mont. 549, 553, 610 P.2d 710, 712), but rather to honor the presumption of innocence, to allow a defendant to prepare his case, and to ensure the defendant's presence in the pending proceeding.

    However, "it is not the purpose of bail to punish a defendant or surety, nor to increase the revenue of the state." State v. Musgrove (1980), 187 Mont. 549, 553, 610 P.2d 710, 712 ( Musgrove I). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find the excessive forfeiture constituted an abuse of discretion. We therefore reverse and remand.

  2. State v. Coates

    241 Mont. 331 (Mont. 1990)   Cited 22 times

    As well, appellant does not argue that the remarks indicated personal bias toward either Mr. Goldman or appellant Additionally, the Judge's observations mirrored the testimony of the prosecuting attorney at appellant's trial In contrast to the case at bar stands State v. Musgrove (1980), 187 Mont. 549, 610 P.2d 710, where we found that the trial judge's comments indicated bias, or an unwillingness to consider evidence. In Musgrove, the defendant had failed to appear at trial on the day of closing arguments.

  3. State v. Musgrove

    659 P.2d 285 (Mont. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    This Court remanded because "[o]ur review of the record leaves no doubt that the $25,000 bond forfeiture was imposed as a penalty." State v. Musgrove (1980), Mont., 610 P.2d 710, 713, 37 St.Rep. 755, 759. Another bail discharge hearing was held on December 1, 1981, and judgment was entered on January 11, 1982. This time the District Court discharged all but $5,000.

  4. State v. Seybert

    753 P.2d 325 (Mont. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Seybert (Mont. 1987), [ 229 Mont. 183,] 745 P.2d 687, 44 St.Rep. 1879. In Seybert, this Court recognized that the primary purposes of bail in a criminal case is not "to punish a defendant or surety, nor to increase the revenue of the State," Seybert, 745 P.2d at 689, 44 St.Rep. at 1882 (quoting State v. Musgrove (1980), 187 Mont. 549, 553, 610 P.2d 710, 712), but rather to honor the presumption of innocence, to allow a defendant to prepare his case, and to ensure the defendant's presence in the pending proceeding. Seybert, 745 P.2d at 688, 44 St.Rep. at 1880 (citing United States v. Skipper (5th Cir. 1981), 633 F.2d 1177). Upon reviewing the facts of that case, this Court concluded that the District Court abused its discretion when it ordered the forfeiture of 75 percent of the bonds posted on behalf of Seybert and Rogers. Seybert, 745 P.2d at 689, 44 St.Rep. at 1882.