Procedural Posture
The Stanislaus County Superior Court, California, entered summary judgment on a bail forfeiture. Appellant surety moved to set aside the summary judgment and discharge the forfeiture on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to forfeit the bond after the criminal proceedings were suspended and the defendant was referred for evaluation pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1368. The trial court denied the motion. The surety appealed.
Overview
The court held that the trial court has jurisdiction to declare a bond forfeited when the defendant fails to appear at a hearing regarding his or her mental competence to stand trial on the charges covered by the bond. This conclusion is consistent with the statutory scheme. Pen. Code, § 1371, provides that bail is exonerated when the defendant is committed to a treatment facility. This indicates that a bail bond continues to insure the defendant's ongoing attendance during the competency proceedings until the defendant either is found mentally competent, at which time the criminal proceedings will resume, or is committed for treatment, at which time the bail will be exonerated. Contrary to the surety's position, the § 1368 proceedings did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the bail bond.
The judgment was affirmed.
Procedural Posture
Defendants sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which awarded plaintiffs $ 20,000 in their action against defendants for negligently carrying out a contract to transport plaintiffs' horse from one race track to another.
Overview
Sir Grant, a two-year-old thoroughbred race horse owned by plaintiffs, died of pneumonia three days after being shipped between two locations in a van with several other horses. During the trial of plaintiffs' action against defendants to recover the value of the horse, plaintiffs' expert witness testified that the prolonged time Sir Grant spent in the van, almost 45 hours, caused the pneumonia condition. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The court determined that there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial court's finding that Sir Grant's sickness was due to defendants' negligence. The testimony established that thoroughbreds had a propensity to contract "shipping fever," and the delay in transportation constituted negligence. The court ruled that the burden was on defendants to demonstrate that Sir Grant's physical condition was not good when he was delivered to the carrier. Further, in refusing to reduce the damages award, the court determined that the damages award was not so high as to raise a suspicion of prejudice or passion because the amount did not shock the sense of justice.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's award of $ 20,000 to plaintiffs and against defendants for negligently carrying out the contract to transport the horse.
