California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re Kowalczyk is that trial courts may only deny bail in noncapital cases for offenses specified in California Constitution article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), and when setting monetary bail, must generally set it in an amount that is reasonably attainable for the defendant based on an individualized assessment of the totality of circumstances, under circumstances where pretrial detention is not warranted under section 12 subdivisions (b) or (c).

Appeal from order denying bail in Superior Court, San Mateo County.

Defendant Appellant was Gerald John Kowalczyk — the criminal defendant charged with identity theft and related offenses who sought release on own recognizance or reduced bail.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — represented by the District Attorney of San Mateo County prosecuting the criminal charges.

The suit sounded in criminal law regarding pretrial detention and bail rights. No cross-claims were identified.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were petitioner entered a fast-food restaurant attempting to use six credit cards, three of which belonged to people who had lost them, was charged with felony vandalism, three counts of felony identity theft, one count of misdemeanor identity theft, and one count of misdemeanor petty theft, had 64 prior convictions, and had failed to comply with supervision while released on own recognizance within the past five years.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied petitioner's motion for release on own recognizance or reduced bail and ordered petitioner detained without bail, ruling that petitioner's lengthy criminal history and failure to comply with prior supervision justified detention for public safety.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1) Which constitutional provision governs the denial of bail in noncapital cases — section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), or section 28(f)(3), of the California Constitution — or can these provisions be reconciled? 2) May a trial court ever set pretrial bail above a defendant's ability to pay?

The Appellate Court held that California Constitution article I, sections 12 and 28(f)(3) can be reconciled, with section 12 subdivisions (b) and (c) exclusively governing when bail may be denied in noncapital cases, while section 28(f)(3) mandates courts consider public and victim safety as primary considerations when making bail determinations, and that bail must generally be set in a reasonably attainable amount based on individualized assessment of the totality of circumstances.

The case is inapplicable when defendants are charged with capital crimes where facts are evident or presumption great, when defendants fall within the specific violent felony or threat exceptions of section 12 subdivisions (b) and (c), when defendants present credible and significant flight risk despite wealth, or when wealthy defendants facing significant imprisonment terms pose threats to public safety.

The case leaves open how courts should address marginal hypothetical scenarios involving wealthy defendants who pose flight risks or public safety threats but fall outside section 12's detention exceptions, the specific evidentiary standards for defendants to prove inability to pay bail, and the precise parameters of what constitutes "reasonably attainable" bail amounts in various factual circumstances.