Opinion ID: 2604305
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: C.R. 46(e)(4) provides:

Text: The court which has forfeited bail before remittance of the forfeiture may direct that the forfeiture be set aside, upon such condition as the court may impose, if it appears that justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture. The trial court has discretion whether to set aside the forfeiture of a bail bond under I.C.R. 46(e)(4). We will not overturn a decision of a trial court under this rule, unless the trial court abuses its discretion. The Court has adopted a three-part test for examining exercise of discretion: (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989) (criminal appeal); Sun Valley Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991) (civil appeal). The trial court ruled that Rupp's alleged fraud was not a ground for setting aside the forfeiture of the bond and denied Bail Bond's motion to exonerate the bond. In doing so, the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of its discretion, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Therefore, we uphold the trial court's decision.