California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Bankers Insurance Company is that a trial court retains jurisdiction over a bail bond when defense counsel indicates there is a reason for defendant's nonappearance, conveys that reason to the court during an off-the-record discussion, and the court states on the record that based on the information given, it will not forfeit the bond, under circumstances where the court has reason to believe sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear per section 1305.1.

Appeal from judgment on bond forfeiture in Superior Court, San Mateo County.

Defendant Appellant was Bankers Insurance Company — the surety company that underwrote a $100,000 bail bond for defendant Cristian Omar Cruzpartida.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting authority seeking to enforce the bond forfeiture.

The suit sounded in bail bond forfeiture proceedings.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Cruzpartida failed to appear at a pretrial conference on April 22, 2024, whereupon his counsel indicated there was a reason for the nonappearance and had an off-the-record discussion with the court. The court stated it would not forfeit the bond based on the information given at the bench. When Cruzpartida failed to appear at the next pretrial conference, the court declared the bond forfeited.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Bankers's motion to set aside the judgment of forfeiture, ruling that it had properly retained jurisdiction over the bond after the first nonappearance and therefore had jurisdiction to declare it forfeited after the second nonappearance.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the bond by failing to declare it forfeited after the first nonappearance where defense counsel conveyed a reason for the absence during an off-the-record discussion and the court indicated it would not forfeit the bond based on that information.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction over the bond because defense counsel affirmatively indicated there was a reason for the client's absence, conveyed the reason to the court during an off-the-record discussion, and the court found it sufficient by stating on the record that based on the information given at the bench, it would not forfeit the bond.

The case is inapplicable when defense counsel offers no reason for defendant's nonappearance, fails to communicate any excuse to the court, or when the court continues the matter without indicating it has found sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear.

The case leaves open what specific reasons constitute sufficient excuse for failure to appear, the extent of detail required to be placed on the record when reasons are discussed off-the-record, and whether immigration-related issues always constitute sufficient excuse for nonappearance.