All About North Carolina Bail Bonds
Even without the advice of lawyers or other legal experts, it is always a sensible idea to familiarize oneself with state's bail laws. Posting bail bonds without knowing specific conditions, rules, conditions and regulations pertaining to that state can create possible problems and complications. Noted appellate decisions in the state of North Carolina for example show interesting if not thoroughly informative scenarios when the mere filing of North Carolina bail bonds was just the start of the story.
In one case (State v. Coronel), there was a forfeiture ordered by the court of North Carolina bail bonds when both the defendants and the sureties did not appear as scheduled. The process continued on until surprisingly, motions were filed by the sureties to remit the bonds as well as giving an incredible if not, tragic story. The defendants, they said, had fled and although they made the necessary effort to follow them, the defendants were able to elude them and then dying later due to a car accident. But even as the court said that the accident made it possible to remit the North Carolina bail bonds, the sureties' less than stellar effort in searching for them nullified the bond remittance with finality.
In another one (Shore v. Farmer) North Carolina bail bonds became the central element in a case when an arrestee filed a lawsuit against a bail bondsman for surrendering the arrestee and her spouse, an act which the arrestee says was a breach of contract. The case reached all the way to the Supreme Court.
In State v. Harkness, the case demonstrated the importance of time limits and deadlines as far as North Carolina bail bonds are concerned. The court denied motions for remissions after it held that the 3-year statute of limitations did not apply. In State v. Mathis, a little known fact emerged that defendants were allowed to instruction by a jury on the bail bondsmen's legal powers to break into residences and to use necessary force to apprehend a principal. In this case, the defendants and the bondsmen were all convicted but the case was later reversed and remanded. Can the courts be also remiss in their duties in enforcing rules regarding North Carolina bail bonds? In the case State v. Cox, a sheriff's employee probably found himself out of a job when a ruling of forfeiture against a surety was rendered null and avoid after it was discovered that the surety was never given notice of the order. In Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider, an important question is answered as to what happens when a defendant skips bail and the court then files judgment on debt of surety on the bail bond, but then the defendant or principal is arrested. Would that circumstance allow for either an original forfeiture's reduction or remission? The answer would depend entirely on the court's discretion although legally, the arrest of the defendant does not actually free the original forfeiture. These actual cases revolving around North Carolina bail bonds serve as an interesting reminder that the bail bond business is not simply about commerce but reflects the all too human fabric that underlies our justice system.
| 