Title: State v. Chatfield

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Chatfield (2000-580); 173 Vt. 104; 787 A.2d 1247

[Filed 09-Nov-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 2000-580

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Essex Circuit

Jesse Chatfield	                                 September Term, 2001
(Marble Valley Bail Bonds, Appellant)

M. Kathleen Manley, J.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney 
  General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cindy Ellen Hill and Jonathan C. Heppell, Law Office of Cindy Ellen Hill, 
  Middlebury, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   Surety Marble Valley Bail Bond, Ltd. appeals from an
  order of the district  court forfeiting bail following defendant's
  nonappearance for a jury draw.  On appeal, surety argues  that changes in
  the bail conditions and the addition of a new charge materially altered the
  risk surety  assumed under the bail bond, without notice to surety, thus
  discharging surety's obligation.  We  affirm.

       As there was no written decision in this case, the relevant facts, as
  can be gathered from the  docketing statement, are as follows.  In December
  1998, defendant Jesse Chatfield was charged with  grossly negligent
  operation of a vehicle, death resulting, in violation of 23 V.S.A. §
  1091(b).  In  February 1999, surety posted $10,000 bail.  Defendant's
  release was conditioned upon his reporting 

 

  to the Vermont State Police barracks in St. Johnsbury, in person, every
  afternoon, and his not  traveling outside of Essex, Caledonia, or Orleans
  counties without written permission of the court.   In subsequent months,
  upon defendant's petition, the court modified the conditions of release to 
  allow him to report to the State police by telephone and to travel to
  Washington County to work, to  Chittenden County upon 24 hours notice to
  his attorney, and to Lamoille County for work.  In May  1999, the State
  charged defendant with driving under the influence of drugs, death
  resulting, in  violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(3), as a result of the same
  incident giving rise to the first charge.   After defendant did not appear
  for a jury draw in October 1999, the district court ordered the  forfeiture
  of bail, and surety entered this appeal.

       At issue in this case is the nature of bail bond agreement between
  surety, defendant and the  court.  A bail bond is a surety agreement
  governed by the same legal principles applicable to the  construction and
  consequences of surety agreements in general.  See generally In re Palmer,
  __ Vt.  __,