Case: In re: Rader Bonding Company
Facts: Bonding Company was the surety for a defendant’s DUI-2nd and Driving on a Revoked License. The State later obtained an indictment that increased the severity of the defendant’s DUI charge to DUI-4th offense and also contained the original Driving on a Revoked License Charge. After the defendant failed to appear in court, the trial court entered a final judgment of forfeiture against the defendant and the Bonding Company.
Appellate Decision: The intermediate court held the original bond continued for the License Charge, but that the bond for DUI-2nd did not extend to the indicted DUI-4th charge because such change was an alteration of the terms of the bonding agreement. Judge Montgomery dissented, writing that the total initial bond remained in full force and effect for all charges resulting from the criminal activity that formed the basis for the initial warrants, notwithstanding the additional and higher charges.
Review Granted: April 11, 2019.
Prediction: Ben thinks the Supreme Court will side with the dissenting opinion: the bonding company should remain responsible for the amount of the original bond notwithstanding the increased charges, unless the indictment results in an increased bond amount or includes charges unrelated to the original warrants.