Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

228 Pa. Super. 222

Commonwealth v. Ball

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 21, 1974

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1974-06-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Such a hearing is necessary in this case so that the court may have before it evidence of the extent of the appellant's participation in the return of the defendants, . . ., and any other relevant evidence appellant may produce which may properly guide the lower court in its future decision as to whether to return any portion of the forfeited bonds herein involved.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 288 Pa. Super. 484 - Commonwealth v. Nolan

“[A]hearing is necessary.. .so that the court may have before it evidence of the extent of the appellant’s participation in the return of the defendants, ..., and any other relevant evidence appellant may produce which may properly guide the [trial court] in its future decision as to whether to return any portion of the forfeited bonds.. .involved.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2005 Pa. Super. 336 - Commonwealth v. Hernandez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2013

10 state decisions

4019741980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion

Per Curiam,

¶2Ronald, Robert and Thomas Ball were arrested in Beaver County for various offenses including burglary, robbery and corrupting the morals of a minor. Each of the Balls was released on bail bonds, pending trial. The bonds were furnished on or about February 17, 1972, by the Allegheny Mutual Casualty Company, through its agent, the appellant John Lonetto.

¶3The Balls did not present themselves for trial when called, and the court declared the bonds forfeited and ordered payment of the full sum (a total of $41,000— $15,000 each for Robert and Ronald Ball, and $11,000 for Thomas Ball) paid to the County.

¶4The apf>ellant-surety paid the $41,000 to the County Commissioners.

¶5Subsequently, the Balls were found in various places outside the jurisdiction of the lower court, and were returned to face trial. The surety filed a motion for return of the bond less 10% costs pursuant to the Act of 1917, P. L. 802, Sec. 1, as amended by the Act of May 13, 1931, P. L. 131, Sec. 1 (8 P.S. §177), to which the County Commissioners and District Attorney consented.

¶6The lower court denied the motion per curiam, without affording the appellant a hearing in which he could argue the equities of his position. Such a hearing is necessary in this case so that the court may have before it evidence of the extent of the appellant’s participation in the return of the defendants. Commonwealth v. Baker, 53 D. & C. 2d 597 (1971); Common*224wealth v. Marks, 25 D. & C. 2d 207 (1961); Commonwealth v. Ketchum, 25 D. & C. 2d 203 (1961); Commonwealth v. Roeschetz, 2 D. & C. 2d 168 (1954), and any other relevant evidence appellant may produce which may properly guide the lower court in its future decision as to whether to return any portion of the forfeited bonds herein involved. We leave to the lower court’s discretion whether or not the County Commissioners and/or the District Attorney can withdraw from the consent to the return of the entire sum less the aforementioned 10% costs, which is now on record, and oppose appellant in such hearing.

¶7Reversed and remanded for a hearing.

/228/pasuper/222 · .json · Public domain