07-26-07
State v. Richard Wilson, et al.
A-5618-05T1
-consolidated with-
State v. James Franklin, et al.
A-5622-05T1
-consolidated with-
State v. Regina Charles, et al.
A-5625-05T1
In these appeals by a corporate surety from bail forfeiture
orders, we hold that the bright-line distinction, for purposes
of exoneration or remittance of bail, between non-appearing
defendants found to be in custody out-of-state and in-state has
lost its significance. We thus find State v. Erickson, 154 N.J.
Super. 201 (App. Div. 1977), no longer to be a proper expression
of the law. We remand the matters for further consideration of
whether bail can be exonerated or remitted at the time the
defendant is located in out-of-state custody and a detainer is
lodged, or whether such relief must await the defendant's return
to New Jersey.
We also suggest that it is inequitable for the State, which
has resources for locating defendants that are not available to
recovery agents, to fail to notify the court and the surety when
a defendant has been found in out-of-state custody, since the
absence of such notification may affect the entry of orders of
forfeiture and the costs of recovery expended by the surety.
