How much bail is excessive?

Million-dollar bail - is it constitutional?

March 20, 2008 - REVERSED AND REMANDED: (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)

Ex parte Christopher Lee Murray--Appeal from 21st District Court of Bastrop County
DISSENTING OPINION: (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop)


Christopher Lee Murray is confined while awaiting trial on an indictment accusing him of capital murder and injury to a child. Murray applied for a writ of habeas corpus complaining that the bail set in this case, $1,000,000, is excessive. The writ issued, and after a hearing, the district court denied relief. In a single point of error, Murray contends that the bail is unreasonably high and the trial court erred by failing to reduce it. We will reverse and remand the cause to the trial court
.
* * *

The Texas Constitution guarantees that "[a]ll prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident." Tex. Const. art. I, § 11; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.07 (West 2005). The State does not claim that the proof is evident in this case. Therefore, Murray is entitled to reasonable bail, that is, bail that is not excessive. U.S. Const. amend VIII; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.09 (West 2005).
Ex parte Christopher Lee Murray--Appeal from 21st District Court of Bastrop County
It is clear from the record that the $1,000,000 bail in this case is beyond Murray's ability to pay. On the other hand, the crime of which Murray is accused is a very serious one, both factually and in regard to the potential punishment. Murray has shown no real ties to the community. Although Murray has no record of convictions for violent crimes, there is evidence that he has assaulted two women, including the mother of the deceased child. Considering the evidence adduced in the light most favorable to the court's ruling, and having measured that ruling against the criteria informing the setting of pretrial bail, we believe that the trial court could reasonably conclude that bail should be higher than the $40,000 to $50,000 sought by Murray, but that the court abused its discretion by maintaining Murray's bail at $1,000,000. Therefore, we sustain Murray's point of error, reverse the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings on the writ of habeas corpus. Upon remand, the trial court shall enter an order setting bail in a reasonable amount consistent with this opinion. Murray may appeal the court's new order in the same manner as he appealed the order now before us.

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

Although million-dollar bonds continue to invite appellate court scrutiny, even in 2008, the starting point of our review is the record that the defendant has the burden to develop. On the scant record before us here, I would hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mr. Murray did not meet his burden of proving excessive bail. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice