holding $1 million aggregate bail excessive for two alleged murders and one alleged capital murder when evidence showed that defendant’s family could “scrape together, at best, $10,000” and bail set by court required “ten times th[at] amount”
How later courts described this case
- holding $1 million aggregate bail excessive for two alleged murders and one alleged capital murder when evidence showed that defendant’s family could “scrape together, at best, $10,000” and bail set by court required “ten times th[at] amount”
- observing that at that time, “this Court [had] yet to condone a bail amount even approaching 11 seven figures, even in a capital case.”
- observing that at that time, “this Court [had] yet to condone a bail amount even approaching seven figures, even in a capital case.”
- noting that the court is “to be governed in the exercise of [its] discretion by the Constitution and by the [article 17.15 factors]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ronald Brown v. State (2003)
Ludwig, 812 S.W.2d. at 325. Ludwig is distinguishable from the instant case in several respects.
Distinguished by Ortiz, Raul v. State (2002)
Moreover, Ludwig is distinguishable from
The opinion
MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
The plurality opinion implies there is a conflict between the provisions of Art. 17.-15, V.A.C.C.P., and Art. 56.01, V.A.C.C.P., regarding whose safety the trial judge may consider when setting a bail amount, and that Art. 17.15, which specifically and solely addresses bail setting, must prevail over *326 Art. 56.01. See at p. 325. I do not necessarily believe that these two statutes cannot be harmonized and both be made effective.
An excellent case can be made that the statutes are pari materia and therefore must be construed with reference to each other. See V.T.C.A. GovtCode § 311.-026(a) (if general provision conflicts with special or local provision, provisions shall be construed to give effect to both if possible). Also see discussion in Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123, 126-27 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (well-settled by this Court that where two statutes are found to be pari materia, effort is made to harmonize and give effect to both).
However, “[w]e need not resolve this question today,” as the plurality notes at p. 325. Thus, with these comments, I concur in the result.
CAMPBELL and BAIRD, JJ., join.