Cameron, Jr. (Timmie) vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. Supreme Ct. – July 18, 2019)

A defendant challenged the district court’s decision to increase his bail from $25,000 to $100,000, arguing that the district court lacked good cause to support the increase.

The State charged Cameron with first-degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon, robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, grand larceny of a firearm, burglary, coercion, and owner or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. At the arraignment hearing, the justice court set bail at $25,000 with mid-level electronic monitoring. The State subsequently sought a grand jury indictment and the case was transferred to district court. The district court transferred bail and set it at $25,000 – the same amount as the justice court.

After setting bail, the district court invited the State to submit a written motion for its request to increase bail to $150,000. The State filed a motion seeking to increase bail, which Cameron opposed. The district court subsequently held a hearing on the State’s motion, heard arguments by the parties, and set bail at $100,000 and imposed house arrest.

Cameron sought a writ of mandamus arguing that his case merited writ relief because the district court improperly increased the bail without a showing of good cause as required under NRS 178.499(1).

The Supreme Court of Nevada explained that as the district court determined, it was not constrained by the justice court’s bail determination, as the case was not bound over from justice court. However, it chose to transfer bail and set it at the same amount as the justice court had and with the same conditions. As a result, the district court was required to find good cause for a subsequent increase of bail. NRS 178.499(1) requires that a district court have good cause to increase bail after it has made an initial bail determination. A district court must consider the following factors when setting bail:

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
2. The financial ability of the defendant to give bail;
3. The character of the defendant; and
4. The factors listed in NRS 178.4853.

NRS 178.498.

A district court must also consider the following factors when considering release without bail:

1. The length of residence in the community;
2. The status and history of employment;
3. Relationships with the person’s spouse and children, parents or other family members and with close friends;
4. Reputation, character and mental condition;
5. Prior criminal record, including, without limitation, any record of appearing or failing to appear after release on bail or without bail;
6. The identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for the reliability of the person;
7. The nature of the offense with which the person is charged, the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence, insofar as these factors relate to the risk of not appearing;
8. The nature and seriousness of the danger to the alleged victim, any other person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release;
9. The likelihood of more criminal activity by the person after release; and
10. Any other factors concerning the person’s ties to the community or bearing on the risk that the person may willfully fail to appear.

NRS 178.4853.

The Court noted that it was not convinced that the district court engaged in a meaningful analysis of the factors to be considered when setting or increasing the bail amount and other condition of bail.

The Court explained that in setting the initial bail, the district court adopted the amount and conditions set by the justice court, which were premised on the justice court’s review of Cameron’s arrest report and criminal history, and on the State’s arguments regarding Cameron’s 10-year-old conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated stalking. Nothing in the record showed that Cameron committed addition crimes in the 10 years leading up to this case or in the time he was released on bail. The Court believed that this record belied the State’s argument and the district court’s conclusion that the justice court did not fully appreciate the circumstances of Cameron’s criminal history.

The Court further noted that the district court did not articulate why it previously imposed bail in the amount of $25,000 with mid-level monitoring was insufficient to ensure Cameron’s appearance. The Court explained that it was also not clear from the record why the district court concluded that Cameron was a flight risk or how the facts before it were substantially different from those before the justice court. The Court further explained that the district court’s decision to increase bail four times over the initial amount, without considering Cameron’s inability to pay and over his objection, seriously undermined NRS 178.498(2)’s requirement that the district court assess a defendant’s inability to post bail before making bail determinations. The Court concluded that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in increasing Cameron’s bail without explaining the good cause shown, and writ relief was warranted. Thus, the Court granted the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to explain the good cause shown for its increase of bail, taking into consideration the factors required by statute.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.