O.C.G.A. § 40-13-58 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS In general. - When a defendant cited for a traffic violation posts a cash bond according to the schedule set up by court order and fails to appear in court at the term of court and on the day set in the original citation and complaint, then and in that event, such failure shall be construed as an admission of guilt and the cash bond may be forfeited; in these circumstances, a plaintiff has established negligence per se in the violation of a statute, which is a prima facie showing of negligence. Coleman v. Fortner, 260 Ga. App. 373, 579 S.E.2d 792 (2003). Admission against interest. - When a defendant cited for a traffic violation posts a cash bond and fails to appear in court at the term of court and on the day set in the original citation and complaint, then such failure shall be construed as an

admission of guilt and the cash bond may be forfeited under O.C.G.A. § 40-13-58; the rule, as to parties to a suit, is that, while convictions for criminal offenses are inadmissible in a civil personal injury action, a plea of guilty may be shown as an admission against interest. Howard v. Lay, 259 Ga. App. 391, 577 S.E.2d 75 (2003). When a motorist who was a defendant in a personal injury suit arising from an automobile accident was issued a citation in connection with the accident, was aware that the citation was issued, even though the motorist was unable to sign the citation as the motorist was being treated for injuries, but was aware that the motorist’s spouse had paid the citation for the motorist, after which the motorist did not appear in court as directed by the

citation, it was proper to instruct the jury in the personal injury suit that the jury could consider this bond forfeiture to be an admission against interest. Burnette v. Brown, 272 Ga. App. 383, 612 S.E.2d 489 (2005). Driver’s failure to appear on a traffic citation for which the driver posted a cash bond was construed as an admission of guilt in a motorist’s civil suit arising from the accident which led to the citation; since the driver did not appear at the trial of the civil suit, the driver’s negligence was unrebutted and was conclusive. Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc. v. Yahyapour, 279 Ga. App. 674, 632 S.E.2d 385 (2006). No admission against interest found. - Payment of a fine for a traffic citation did not constitute an admission against interest in a personal injury suit arising from the accident where the tortfeasor testified that the tortfeasor had no knowledge of the citation until the tortfeasor’s deposition, when it was mentioned by the tortfeasor’s attorney, as the tortfeasor was unconscious when the citation was issued, and that the tortfeasor’s spouse must have paid the fine while the tortfeasor was recuperating. Howard v. Lay, 259 Ga. App. 391, 577 S.E.2d 75 (2003). Calculating criminal history based on bond forfeiture. - Sentence imposed for the defendant’s 2008 bank robbery was vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing because the defendant’s bond forfeiture should not factor into the calculation of the defendant’s criminal history under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(a) (2008) if the defendant’s failure to attend the February 2008 arraignment was involuntary

under O.C.G.A. § 17-6-72(b), and the district court, assuming that all Georgia bond forfeitures should be considered convictions for purposes of calculating criminal history under the sentencing guidelines pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-13-58, did not determine whether the defendant’s failure to attend the arraignment was willful or involuntary. United States v. Daniel, 358 Fed. Appx. 79 (11th Cir. 2009) (Unpublished). Exclusion of evidence of forfeiture error. - Trial court erred in excluding evidence that a city bus driver was issued a citation for a lane change violation in an accident that resulted in the plaintiff ’s injuries and that the bus driver paid the citation without entering a plea or appearing to contest the citation, acknowledging guilt under O.C.G.A. § 40-13-58 and establishing negligence per se. The error was not harmless because the error prevented the plaintiff from establishing negligence as a matter of law and from impeaching the driver’s inconsistent trial testimony. Agic v. MARTA, 334 Ga. App. 679, 780 S.E.2d 79 (2015). Jury charge proper. - In the victim’s action for damages for a vehicle collision in which the driver posted bond for a traffic citation but did not appear in court, the trial court’s charge that the driver’s failure to appear was an admission of guilt was an accurate statement of the law regarding forfeiture. Coleman v. Fortner, 260 Ga. App. 373, 579 S.E.2d 792 (2003). Cited in Cannon v. Street, 220 Ga. App. 212, 469 S.E.2d 343 (1996); Furlong v. Dyal, 246 Ga. App. 122, 539 S.E.2d 836 (2000); Eubanks v. Waldron, 263 Ga. App. 75, 587 S.E.2d 253 (2003); Hite v. Anderson, 284 Ga. App. 156, 643 S.E.2d 550 (2007).