Sec. 4. (a) The court shall order the amount in which
a person charged by an indictment or information is to be held to bail,
and the clerk shall enter the order on the order book and indorse the
amount on each warrant when issued. If no order fixing the amount of
bail has been made, the sheriff shall present the warrant to the judge of
an appropriate court of criminal jurisdiction, and the judge shall
indorse on the warrant the amount of bail.
(b) Bail may not be set higher than that amount reasonably required
to assure the defendant's appearance in court or to assure the physical
safety of another person or the community if the court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a risk to the physical
safety of another person or the community. In setting and accepting an
amount of bail, the judicial officer shall consider the bail guidelines
described in section 3.8 of this chapter and take into account all facts
relevant to the risk of nonappearance, including:
(1) the length and character of the defendant's residence in the
community;
(2) the defendant's employment status and history and the
defendant's ability to give bail;
(3) the defendant's family ties and relationships;
(4) the defendant's character, reputation, habits, and mental
condition;
(5) the defendant's criminal or juvenile record, insofar as it
demonstrates instability and a disdain for the court's authority to
bring the defendant to trial;
(6) the defendant's previous record in not responding to court
appearances when required or with respect to flight to avoid
criminal prosecution;
(7) the nature and gravity of the offense and the potential penalty
faced, insofar as these factors are relevant to the risk of
nonappearance;
(8) the source of funds or property to be used to post bail or to pay
a premium, insofar as it affects the risk of nonappearance;
(9) that the defendant is a foreign national who is unlawfully
present in the United States under federal immigration law; and
(10) any other factors, including any evidence of instability and
a disdain for authority, which might indicate that the defendant
might not recognize and adhere to the authority of the court to
bring the defendant to trial.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by
P.L.221-1996, SEC.3; P.L.171-2011, SEC.21; P.L.187-2017,
SEC.9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case:
Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “In short, factors 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 either favor Sneed's request to reduce bail or at worst leave a neutral impression.”
Samm v. State, 893 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 14× “It is possible that the trial court's internal calculus took all of the factors into account, but without statements on the record we cannot assume that it did so. Therefore, we conclude that by failing to acknowledge uncontroverted evidence on several of the factors listed in…”
Adolfo Lopez v. State of Indiana, 985 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “2d 85, 88 (1959) and Ind.Code § 35-33-8-4(b)). When setting and accepting an amount of bail, the trial court is required to take into account all facts relevant to the risk of nonappearance, including: (1) the length and character of the defendant’s residence in the community;…”
Ray v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 12× “Here, the court based its revocation of bail on what may be referred to as the new "community safety" exception to a different code section, Indiana Code § 35-33-8-4(b). However, we conclude that neither that exception nor Indiana Code § 35-33-8-4(b) applies in this case.”
Tommi Emerson Winn v. State of Indiana, 973 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4 (b). By statute, a trial court has several options regarding the manner of executing bail, including the option to “execute a bail bond by depositing cash or securities with the clerk of the court in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the bail.”
Charles Cole v. State of Indiana, 997 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” Ind.Code § 35-33-8-4(b) also provides that in setting bail the judicial officer shall take into account all facts relevant to the risk of nonappearance *1146 and includes a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider.”
Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana, 990 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4 (b), under certain circumstances some of the middle burdens of proof already apply in our bail statutes.”
Anthony J. Johnson v. State of Indiana, 114 N.E.3d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “I.C. § 35-33-8-4. The trial court may increase bail where the State provides clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a risk to the physical safety of another person or the community.”
Reeves v. State, 923 N.E.2d 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-4(b) provides: Bail may not be set higher than that amount reasonably required to assure the defendant's appearance in court or to assure the physical safety of another person or the community if the court finds by clear and convincing…”
Woods v. City Of Michigan City, 940 F.2d 275 (7th Cir. 1991).
“Ind.Code 35-33-8-4(a). Indiana law reveals that judges of Indiana's circuit, superior and county courts are judicial officers of the State judicial system: "they are not county officials.”
Brettin v. Grandstaff, 723 N.E.2d 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Code Section 35-33-8-4 is the controlling statute in the present case.”
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(a) — 2 cases
Woods v. City Of Michigan City, 940 F.2d 275 (7th Cir. 1991).
“Ind.Code 35-33-8-4(a). Indiana law reveals that judges of Indiana's circuit, superior and county courts are judicial officers of the State judicial system: "they are not county officials.”
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(b) — 22 cases
Samm v. State, 893 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“It is possible that the trial court's internal calculus took all of the factors into account, but without statements on the record we cannot assume that it did so. Therefore, we conclude that by failing to acknowledge uncontroverted evidence on several of the factors listed in…”
Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“In short, factors 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 either favor Sneed's request to reduce bail or at worst leave a neutral impression.”
Adolfo Lopez v. State of Indiana, 985 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“2d 85, 88 (1959) and Ind.Code § 35-33-8-4(b)). When setting and accepting an amount of bail, the trial court is required to take into account all facts relevant to the risk of nonappearance, including: (1) the length and character of the defendant’s residence in the community;…”
Ray v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
“Here, the court based its revocation of bail on what may be referred to as the new "community safety" exception to a different code section, Indiana Code § 35-33-8-4(b). However, we conclude that neither that exception nor Indiana Code § 35-33-8-4(b) applies in this case.”
Tommi Emerson Winn v. State of Indiana, 973 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4 (b). By statute, a trial court has several options regarding the manner of executing bail, including the option to “execute a bail bond by depositing cash or securities with the clerk of the court in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the bail.”
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(b)(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(b)(2) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(b)(3) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(b)(6) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-33-8-4(b)(7) — 3 cases
Sneed v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“In short, factors 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 either favor Sneed's request to reduce bail or at worst leave a neutral impression.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.