Opinion ID: 1766927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: contradictory hearing requirement

Text: As noted at the outset, the second issue presented here is whether in Orleans Parish a contradictory hearing is mandated to change the type of security, as distinguished from increasing or decreasing the amount of bail. Although the Fourth Circuit did not reach this issue, it is clearly presented as Judge Marullo's ex parte ruling at issue did precisely thatchanged the type of security, but not the amount of Amanda Neisler's bail. [18] Resolution of this second issue hinges on the construction of the language legislatively added to former LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 321 in 1991, and carried forward verbatim in LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 342 in 1993. As noted elsewhere, the 1991 amendment to this article added an express requirement that in any parish with a population in excess of four hundred ninety thousand, the district court shall hold a contradictory hearing prior to a modification of the bail order. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 342 (former Art. 321) (Emphasis supplied). [19] We take judicial notice that this provision is directed solely to Orleans Parish. See G. Berrigan, Louisiana Criminal Trial Practice 8-2 (2nd Ed.1992) (recognizing that [i]n Orleans Parish, bail can be modified only after a contradictory hearing.) While this statutory enactment undoubtedly was designed to resolve the potential problem mentioned above of ex parte bail modifications, a potential loophole in the contradictory hearing requirement has been suggested and is at the core of the second issue before us. The suggested loophole is that when, as here, there is no increase or reduction in the amount of bail, but simply a change in the type of security, there is no modification in the bail order within the meaning of LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 342, and the contradictory hearing requirement is thus inapposite. We reject this semantic argument and construe this provision as plainly requiring a contradictory hearing any time there is a change in the type of security required, regardless that the amount of bail remains unchanged. Our construction is consistent with the entire statutory scheme of the 1993 Bail Reform Act. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 311 defines bail as the security given by a person to assure his appearance before the proper court whenever required. There are three types or forms of bail in Louisiana: (1) bail through surety, (2) bail through cash deposits, and (3) bail without surety. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 312. The factual reality is that a change in the type of security may be as significant as a change in the amount of bail in assuring the defendant's appearance in court whenever required. Indeed, this factual reality is now statutorily recognized in LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 334, which lists as one of the factors to be considered in determining the amount of bail [t]he type or form of bail. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 334(10). Our holding is strengthened by reading three other bail provisions in pari materia. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 338 provides that [a]n order fixing bail shall be in writing, specify the amount and type of the bail, and designate the officer or officers authorized to accept the bail, and shall be signed by the magistrate. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 339 provides, in part, that [t]he election of the unsecured personal surety or bail without surety by the court shall be expressed in the bail order. [20] The court's authority to change the type of security from secured to unsecured is thus statutorily tied to its authority to modify the bail order, which is governed by LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 342. Under LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 342, any motion seeking a modification of the bail order must be done by contradictory hearing. Reading these three provisions together leads to the inescapable conclusion that any modification in a bail orderthat is, any increase or reduction in the amount of bail, any requirement of new or additional security, or any change in the type or form of securitymust be preceded by a contradictory hearing. Applying our holding on this issue to the facts of the instant case, we conclude that because Judge Marullo modified Amanda Neisler's bail to change the type of security in an ex parte proceeding, the modification was unauthorized. We thus conclude that the Fourth Circuit reached the right result, but for the wrong reasons.