State v. Norton

14 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cook

    432 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    Further, if the accused requests, and the Court and prosecuting attorney consent, a trial may be had in a misdemeanor case with the accused absent. State v. Norton, Mo.Sup., 347 S.W.2d 849 (1961); City of St. Louis v. Walker, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 671 (1958); S.Ct.Rule 37.485, V.A.M.R. The exceptions do not apply in this case.

  2. State v. Pfeifer

    544 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 13 times

    Although the rule seems to permit the proceedings to carry forth in the absence of a defendant if it is agreeable to both the court and the prosecuting attorney, such is not the interpretation given it by the Missouri Supreme Court. In State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849 (Mo. banc 1961), the defendant had failed to appear for a court date on a traffic offense, his attorney did appear and successfully argued a motion to dismiss the information, and the question on appeal was the propriety of the forfeiture of defendant's appearance bond. The court upheld the forfeiture and the scire facias proceeding to enforce the forfeiture.

  3. Bruno v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    71 T.C. 191 (U.S.T.C. 1978)   Cited 3 times
    In Bruno v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 191 (1978), however, the Court found that a bail bond business was basically a service activity and held that the capital (mainly in the form of real estate) required to qualify for a State license was not a material income-producing factor because such capital was not actually used in producing the business' income.

    While the court will look to the surety's property in the event that the accused fails to appear at the proper time and place, it is the accused's presence in court that is the raison d'etre for the bail bondsman and not his financial wherewithal. State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849, 856 (Mo. 1961). We find no merit in respondent's contention that the business of writing bail bonds is analogous to the business of commercial banking.

  4. State v. District Court

    97 Nev. 34 (Nev. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    However, other courts have treated such proceedings as civil in nature and have applied the procedural rules governing civil actions. See, e.g., United States v. Plechner, 577 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1978); People v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 139 Cal.Rptr. 795 (Cal.App. 1977); LaRue v. Burns, 268 N.W.2d 639 (Iowa 1978); City of Westwood v. Holland, 394 P.2d 56 (Kan. 1964); State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849 (Mo. 1961); State v. United Bonding Insurance Company, 464 P.2d 884 (N.M. 1970). Such treatment is logical.

  5. State ex Rel. Garrett v. Gagne

    531 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. 1976)   Cited 16 times
    In Gagne, where trial was had and an appeal to the circuit court was available (appeal was not available in the present case as there was a guilty plea โ€” see footnote 4), the court stated that in the circuit court the prosecuting authority was still required to establish defendant's guilt, even though it would require the city to do so a second time.

    The court of appeals in Walker saw that this was so and this court should likewise recognize it to be true. In State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849 (Mo. banc 1961), a bond forfeiture case where the defendant failed to appear at trial in court on a misdemeanor charge, and in State v. Cook, 432 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. banc 1968), an appeal from conviction of defendant in circuit court on a misdemeanor charge where defendant failed to appear for trial (neither case was an appeal from magistrate court), this court held that a person could not be tried for a felony or misdemeanor unless he be personally present except when the accused, in a misdemeanor case, requested and the court and prosecuting attorney consented to a trial in his absence. Norton and Cook cite City of St. Louis v. Walker, supra, with approval.

  6. State v. Super

    281 Minn. 451 (Minn. 1968)   Cited 5 times
    Recognizing that the bail system reconciles a defendant's pretrial liberty with the state's need to ensure their return for trial

    Identity is a main issue in a simple assault charge and defendant's absence would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the trier of fact to arrive at a true and just verdict. Cf. State v. Norton (Mo.) 347 S.W.2d 849. Another problem before the trial court in determining whether it should proceed in the instant case was whether there were before it sufficient facts to show a waiver by defendant of his right to appear for trial. This court in State v. Tupa, 194 Minn. 488, 495, 260 N.W. 875, 878, 99 A.L.R. 147, stated:

  7. State v. Logan

    411 S.W.2d 86 (Mo. 1967)   Cited 5 times

    Art. V Sec. 3, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S. The state is the real party in interest in this civil action to recover a penalty to be paid into the school fund of the state. This case is comparable to those where the state maintains a civil action to recover on an appearance bond. Compare State v. Haverstick, Mo., 326 S.W.2d 92, 75 A.L.R.2d 1422, and State v. Norton, Mo., 347 S.W.2d 849. The basis for the recovery of a penalty from defendant, as expressly alleged in the petition, is that he violated Section 390.

  8. Laas v. Wright

    191 S.W.3d 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    "'A bail bond is a contract between the government, on the one side, and the principal and sureties, on the other.'" State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849, 855 (Mo. banc 1961), quoting 6 Am.Jur. (Rev.Ed.) 89, ยง 61. The agreement pursuant to which the appeal bond was written provided that the bond premium was earned upon execution of the bond.

  9. State v. Goodrich

    12 S.W.3d 770 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 10 times

    "The breach of the bond takes place when the defendant fails to report in court as required and the court enters that fact of record." State v. Yount, 813 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Mo.App.E.D. 1991), quoting, State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849, 856 (Mo.banc 1961). "The mere noting of the forfeiture is not the final determination of the liability of the defendant and his surety.

  10. State v. Yount

    813 S.W.2d 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 7 times
    In Yount, as in the present case, the surety failed to show that the defendant was incarcerated prior to entry of judgment on the forfeiture.

    "The breach of the bond takes place when the defendant fails to report in court as required and the court enters that fact of record." State v. Norton, 347 S.W.2d 849, 856 [11] (Mo. banc 1961). After the breach of the bond, the court is required to hold a hearing and enter a judgment on the bond penalty.