Opinion ID: 2458654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bonding Agent's Privilege

Text: The court of appeals held that the common law bonding agent's privilege survives in Colorado and that affirmative defense instruction 16 adequately articulated the privilege, rendering Oram and Weinstein's tendered jury instruction explaining the privilege and claiming immunity unnecessary. We hold that the common law bonding agent's privilege does not exist in Colorado. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Oram and Weinstein's tendered instructions and, although instruction 16 was unnecessary, any error in its presence inured to the benefit of Oram and Weinstein and was thus harmless. In Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 83 U.S. 366, 21 L.Ed. 287 (1872), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated as dicta what has come to be known as the common law bonding agent's privilege. See, e.g., State v. Nugent, 199 Conn. 537, 508 A.2d 728, 731-32 (1986); State v. Burhans, 277 Kan. 858, 89 P.3d 629, 633 (2004); State v. Tapia, 468 N.W.2d 342, 343-44 (Minn.Ct.App.1991). The Court stated: When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if it cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner. Taylor, 83 U.S. at 371 (emphasis added). Although many other states have recognized and adopted the common law bonding agent's privilege, Colorado has never explicitly recognized its existence outside of its general adoption of the common law. In Colorado, the common law remains valid and in effect unless it is repealed by the General Assembly. § 2-4-211, C.R.S. (2010). We construe such alterations made to the common law by the General Assembly strictly, Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo. 2004), and will only recognize changes that the General Assembly has expressly mandated or necessarily implied by subsequent legislation, Clancy Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Salazar, 177 P.3d 1235, 1237 (Colo.2008). Accordingly, we must look to the Colorado Revised Statutes to determine if the common law bonding agent's privilege survives in Colorado. The general provisions of the criminal code, read together with the burglary statutes, necessarily imply that the General Assembly intended to abolish the common law bonding agent's privilege. Section 18-1-104(3), C.R.S. (2010), states that common law crimes are abolished in Colorado and that conduct constitutes an offense only if it is defined by statute. Therefore, an act is only criminal if it has been defined by the General Assembly. Further, section 18-1-103(1), C.R.S. (2010), instructs that the criminal code and other Colorado statutes govern the construction and punishment of any defined offense, but also the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense. (emphasis added). Thus, all affirmative defenses to crimes must be defined by the General Assembly in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Burglary is a defined offense in the Colorado Revised Statutes. See §§ 18-4-202 to -204, C.R.S. (2010). Therefore, based on section 18-1-103(1), defenses to burglary must also be defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. There are, however, no statutes in Colorado that codify the common law bonding agent's privilege as an affirmative defense. Section 16-4-108(1)(c), C.R.S. (2010), gives a bonding agent authority to seize and surrender a principal. This section, however, merely states that a surety may seize and surrender the defendant and, unlike the dicta in Taylor, does not give further instruction as to how the bonding agent may do so. Further, the General Assembly has never stated that the right of a surety to seize the defendant is an affirmative defense. See generally §§ 18-1-501 to -505, C.R.S. (2010) (principals of criminal culpability); §§ 18-1-701 to -710, C.R.S. (2010) (justification and exemptions from criminal responsibility); §§ 18-1-801 to -805, C.R.S. (2010) (responsibility). Thus, based on section 18-1-103(1)'s requirement that all defenses to defined offenses must be codified in the Colorado Revised Statutes, the common law bonding agent's privilege has not survived and has been abrogated by the General Assembly in the general provisions of the criminal code and the burglary statutes. Because we hold that the common law bonding agent's privilege does not survive in Colorado, the trial court properly denied Oram and Weinstein's challenge to affirmative defense instruction 16 and, in fact, need not have tendered the instruction at all. Because any error in the giving of this instruction inured to the benefit of Oram and Weinstein, this error is harmless. The trial court also properly rejected Oram and Weinstein's tendered instructions defining the common law bonding agent's privilege and stating that bonding agents have immunity from criminal liability. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals on this issue.