State v. Burgins

464 S.W.3d 298

State of Tennessee

v.Latickia Tashay Burgins

No. E2014-02110-SC-R8-CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT NASHVILLE .

February 5, 2015 Session

Filed April 7, 2015

Herbert Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; and John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

G. Michael Davis, University of Tennessee Legal Clinic Attorney; Wade V. Davies and Valorie K. Vojdik, Supervising Attorneys, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Latickia Tashay Burgins.

Opinion

SHARON G. LEE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK, GARY R. WADE, JEFFREY S. BIVINS, and HOLLY KIRBY, JJ., joined.

OPINION

SHARON G. LEE, C.J.

We granted review in this case to determine whether Tennessee's bail revocation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–11–141(b), is constitutional, and if so, to establish the procedure to be followed in bail revocation proceedings. A Knox County grand jury returned a presentment against the defendant for simple possession of marijuana. The defendant posted bond and was released. Subsequently, a Knox County grand jury issued a nineteen-count presentment against the defendant, charging her with multiple crimes, including attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted carjacking, and aggravated assault. The trial court, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–11–141(b), granted the State's motion to revoke the defendant's bail. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the statute violated article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution. We hold that the Tennessee Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to pretrial release on bail, but this right is not absolute. A defendant may forfeit her right to bail by subsequent criminal conduct. Before pretrial bail can be revoked, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On March 12, 2013, a Knox County grand jury returned a presentment against Latickia Tashay Burgins for the misdemeanor offense of simple possession of marijuana. Ms. Burgins' bail was set at $5000. On June 11, 2013, Ms. Burgins, through a bonding company, posted an appearance bond and was released from jail.

On or about March 8, 2014, while awaiting trial on the marijuana charge, Ms. Burgins allegedly was involved in an attempted carjacking in Knox County. On April 15, 2014, a Knox County grand jury issued a nineteen-count presentment against Ms. Burgins, charging her with multiple crimes, including attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted carjacking, and aggravated assault. On April 24, 2014, a capias was served on Ms. Burgins.¹

On April 25, 2014, the State moved to revoke Ms. Burgins' bail in the 2013 marijuana case based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–11–141(b) (2012) (“the revocation statute”). The motion alleged that Ms. Burgins had been arrested for allegedly committing serious criminal offenses while on bond and was a threat to the community. In response, Ms. Burgins moved the trial court to set bail and to declare the revocation statute unconstitutional under article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution. On June 24, 2014, the trial court, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, revoked Ms. Burgins' bond, finding that the violent and serious nature of the crimes she was alleged to have committed while on bail created a “rational basis to believe that she's a violent person, and her release would be detrimental to the safety and welfare of the community.” The trial court found that the revocation statute was constitutional, noting that a defendant is guaranteed an initial grant of pretrial bail in noncapital cases but there is no denial of the right to bail when it is revoked after the defendant has committed a crime of violence while released on pretrial bail.

Ms. Burgins sought review by the Court of Criminal Appeals under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a). The Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief, holding that the revocation statute violated article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution to the extent that it permits a trial court to hold Ms. Burgins without bail pending trial. The intermediate appellate court remanded the case for consideration of the statutory factors outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–11–118(b) (2012) and the imposition of additional conditions for bail that may be necessary to reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant while at the same time protecting the safety of the public. State v. Burgins, No. E2014–02110–CCA–R8–CO, 2014 WL 6792690, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 3, 2014).

The constitutionality of the revocation statute presents an issue of first impression and provides the opportunity both to resolve an important question of law and secure uniformity of decision. We granted the State's application for review under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 to determine whether Tennessee's bail revocation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–11–141(b), is constitutional, and if so, to establish the procedure to be followed in bail revocation proceedings.

II. Analysis

A.

Bail is a basic component of the American judicial system and is predicated on the principle “that a person accused of [a] crime shall not, until ... finally adjudged guilty in the court of last resort, be absolutely compelled to undergo imprisonment or punishment.” Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277, 285, 15 S.Ct. 450, 39 L.Ed. 424 (1895). Pretrial release on bail “permits the unhampered preparation of a defense[ ] and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.” Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951) (citing Hudson, 156 U.S. at 285, 15 S.Ct. 450 ). Pretrial bail also accommodates the defendant's interest in pretrial liberty and “society's interest in assuring the defendant's presence at trial.” Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Note, The Eighth Amendment and the Right to Bail: Historical Perspectives, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 328, 329–30 (1982). Compare Reynolds v. United States, 80 S.Ct. 30, 32, 4 L.Ed.2d 46 (Douglas, Circuit Justice, 1959) (“The purpose of bail is to [e]nsure the defendant's appearance and submission to the judgment of the court.”), with Bandy v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 197, 197, 5 L.Ed.2d 218 (Douglas, Circuit Justice, 1960) (“The fundamental tradition in this country is that one charged with a crime is not, in ordinary circumstances, imprisoned until after a judgment of guilt.”). Denying bail can create serious and long-lasting adverse effects on a defendant. These adverse effects, when possible, should be mitigated in light of the constitutional principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. See Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Tenn. 1996) (stating that a criminal defendant “is presumed by law to be innocent until proven guilty” (quoting State v. Shelton, 851 S.W.2d 134, 139 (Tenn. 1993) )). See generally 3 Joseph G. Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused § 13:3 (3d ed. 1996).

The origins of pretrial bail date back to medieval England, where it served “as a device to free untried prisoners.” Daniel J. Freed & Patricia M. Wald, Bail in the United States: 1964, at 1 (1964). During this time, the penalty for most crimes was a monetary fine paid to the victim. Thus, the amount of bail, which was often guaranteed by a third-party surety, was identical to the potential penalty upon a conviction. See June Carbone, Seeing Through the Emperor's New Clothes: Rediscovery of Basic Principles in the Administration of Bail, 34 Syracuse L. Rev. 517, 519–20 (1983). Along with compensating victims, this system worked well to deter pretrial flight, as the surety was incentivized through financial responsibility to produce the accused for trial. Id. at 520.

Eventually, however, certain problems arose. Over time, the amount of bail gradually ceased to correlate with the potential punishment, as monetary fines gave way to capital and corporal punishments. Id. at 520, 522. Further, accused persons started to face longer and longer delays between accusation and trial, with sheriffs “exercis[ing] a broad and ill-defined discretionary power to bail ... prisoners.” United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc). These sheriffs also began to abuse their power widely, extorting money from many already entitled to release and accepting bribes in exchange for release from those not otherwise entitled to bail. Id.

Responding to historical abuses, the Magna Carta, created in 1215, established the due process foundation for the right to bail, and the Statute of Westminster I, passed in 1275, established the offenses for which bail was automatically granted. Matthew J. Hegreness, America's Fundamental and Vanishing Right to Bail, 55 Ariz. L. Rev. 909, 916–17 (2013) (explaining that the Statute of Westminster I left “the vast quantity of felonious, as well as nonfelonious, offenses as bailable”). In American colonial times through the era of the Constitution's inception, the right to bail was included in ordinances and statutes. Verrilli, supra, at 337–38. The United States Supreme Court later reaffirmed this right, stating, “[u]nless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.” Stack, 342 U.S. at 4, 72 S.Ct. 1.

The United States and Tennessee Constitutions provide for bail. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits imposing “[e]xcessive bail” or “excessive fines” and inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Although this provision does not create a right to...