Commonwealth v. Hann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Deterring defendants in general from breaching bail bond conditions, and the seriousness of the condition breached, are equally important considerations. “If a violation of a condition of release is more than technical, the court may require a substantial forfeiture to deter not only the defendant but others from future violations.” The instant case provides a stark example of a violation that “is more than technical”: where the defendant willfully murdered the victim of a prior crime, and accordingly, the government’s lone -witness in a prosecution, and then turned the gun on himself, preventing any further prosecution. Indeed, even if Hann had not committed suicide, his murder of Souders would have destroyed the Commonwealth’s case. “It undercut what trial courts seek to prevent here and in future cases-obstruction of justice.” Further, it is self-evident that violating no-contact orders, intimidating or physically harming witnesses, or committing other crimes while free on bail all constitute serious bail bond breaches, to which courts may be inclined to respond with forfeiture orders in order to deter future misconduct. sjí Hí Hí We do not portend to render bail bondsmen, or any surety for that matter, the guarantors of a defendant’s conduct while the defendant is released on bail. However, the express language of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning bail, bail bonds, and forfeiture do not limit the availability of forfeiture exclusively to abscondment ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 44 - In Re: Hann, R.L.

2. “In September of 2010, Pennsylvania State Police arrested Ricky Lynn Hann for assaulting his then-girlfriend, Lisa Souders. Following an initial bail hearing, he was released on his own recognizance. Contemporaneous to Harm’s arrest and release, Souders obtained a protection from abuse (PFA) order against him. In November of 2010, police again arrested Hann and charged him with indirect criminal contempt for violating the PFA order. He was subsequently found guilty, but apparently remained free. Then, on February 19, 2011, Soud-ers reported to State Police that the previous day Hann had kidnapped her, and kept her against her will for approximately 24 hours before she was able to escape. Based upon Souders’[s] statement, Trooper Gary Ford filed a criminal complaint against Hann,[ 2 ] and received and executed an arrest warrant against him. Hann was arraigned and bail was set at $100,000. Following the arraignment, arrangements were made with ... Paul Weachter, a professional and licensed bail bondsman, for bail to be posted to secure Hann’s release. As part of his agreement leading to his release, Hann agreed to the following conditions, relevant to this appeal: 1. The defendant must appear at all times required until full and final disposition of the case. 2. The defendant must obey all further orders of the bail authority. [[Image here]] 4. The defendant must neither do, nor cause to be done, nor permit to be done on his/her behalf, any act as proscribed by Section 4952 of t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 44 - In Re: Hann, R.L.

3. ““[T]he decision to allow or deny a remission of bail forfeiture lies with the sound discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Chopak, 532 Pa. 227 , 615 A.2d 696, 701 (1992). Trial courts unquestionably have the authority to order the forfeiture of bail upon the breach or violation of any condition of the bail bond. Id. at 701-02. In bond forfeiture cases, an abuse of that discretion or authority will only be found if the aggrieved party demonstrates that the trial court misapplied the law, exercised its judgment in a manifestly unreasonable manner, or acted on the basis of bias, partiality, or ill-will. [Commonwealth v. ]Culver, 46 A.3d [786,] 790 [ (Pa.Super.2012) ]. To the extent the aggrieved party alleges an error of law, this Court will correct that error, and our scope of review in doing so is plenary. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 44 - In Re: Hann, R.L.