Previous Story
King-Nabors wants strict bail conditions for criminal cases
|
Posted on Mar 24 2023
Karl R. King-Nabors
Sen. Karl R. King-Nabors (R-Tinian) has introduced a bill that would require stricter conditions for making bail and improved enforcement of bail conditions in criminal cases.
This comes soon after King-Nabors noted an increase in the number of cases in which criminal defendants with prior convictions and a history of violence have been released on bail without proper supervision or who have committed violations of the conditions of release, without any substantial consequences.
King-Nabors’ bill also defines the eligibility of a defendant for a preliminary hearing while released on bail.
Under Senate Bill 23-35, the senator cited a recent example of a convicted felon who had served time in prison, was on probation and had violated the conditions of his probation by committing two separate felony offenses, but was still released on bail.
While out on bail, the convicted felon then committed a violent crime, evaded arrest, kidnapped a girlfriend, obtained a firearm from a Department of Corrections officer, and repeatedly fired the weapon at officers.
The senator said this resulted in the convicted felon’s own death and the death of his girlfriend.
King-Nabors said these criminal defendants present an increased danger to the community and have failed to comply with the reasonable restrictions placed on them by the courts.
He said these amendments to the Commonwealth Code relating to bail proceedings provide for more consistent application of conditions of release and consequences for violation of those conditions that better protect the public and victims of crime.
The senator said there has been ambiguity in the law as to when a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. He noted that Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing if the defendant is “substantially deprived” of liberty, without explicitly defining “substantially deprive.” Court cases have been inconsistent in application of any definition, King-Nabors said.
