Failure To Appear Prosecutions
โ What Is Failure to Appear (FTA)?
Failure to Appear refers to when a person knowingly does not show up for a scheduled court appearance after being:
Released on bail or bond,
Summoned by subpoena,
Ordered by a court mandate.
FTA can occur in criminal, civil, or traffic matters, but it becomes a criminal offense when someone intentionally fails to appear in a criminal case or while on pretrial release.
๐งพ Legal Framework
Federal Law:
18 U.S.C. ยง 3146: Federal statute criminalizing failure to appear for court proceedings after being released pending trial or sentencing.
Penalties:
Up to 1 year for misdemeanor charges.
Up to 5 years if the underlying offense is a felony.
Sentences may run consecutively to the original charge.
State Laws:
All 50 states have laws criminalizing FTA.
Classified as either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying charge.
Penalties include fines, jail time, revocation of bond, or issuance of a bench warrant.
โ๏ธ Key Cases in Failure to Appear Prosecutions
1. United States v. Felix, 1984
๐ Facts:
Felix was released on bond after being indicted on drug trafficking charges.
He fled and failed to appear for his trial.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Charged under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3146 for FTA.
Defense argued he feared an unfair trial.
๐งพ Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 3 years consecutive to his drug charges.
The court held that fear of conviction is not a valid excuse.
๐ Significance:
Reinforces the rule that intent to avoid prosecution is not a defense to FTA.
2. State v. Barnes (California, 1995)
๐ Facts:
Barnes was charged with burglary and released on bail.
He failed to appear at multiple hearings and was eventually arrested months later.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Prosecuted under California Penal Code ยง 1320.5 (FTA on felony).
๐งพ Outcome:
Convicted of felony FTA.
Court emphasized willful avoidance of court process.
๐ Significance:
Shows how states elevate FTA to felony status when it involves serious charges.
3. United States v. Thompson, 2001
๐ Facts:
Thompson, released on bail pending sentencing for fraud, failed to appear at his sentencing hearing.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Argued confusion over court date due to change in legal counsel.
๐งพ Outcome:
Convicted of FTA.
Court ruled that notice of appearance requirement was clearly provided.
๐ Significance:
Clarifies that ignorance or confusion, without due diligence, is not a valid defense.
4. State v. Martinez (Texas, 2008)
๐ Facts:
Martinez failed to appear for trial on assault charges.
Claimed car trouble and inability to contact the court.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Charged under Texas Penal Code ยง 38.10 (Bail Jumping and FTA).
๐งพ Outcome:
Convicted.
The court ruled that excuses must be supported by evidence and must show a lack of criminal intent.
๐ Significance:
Reinforces requirement of willfulness for FTA conviction.
5. United States v. Scott, 2010
๐ Facts:
Scott, facing federal weapons charges, jumped bail and fled to another state.
Arrested two years later under a different name.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Prosecuted for FTA and identity fraud.
๐งพ Outcome:
Received 5-year sentence for FTA in addition to original conviction.
๐ Significance:
Highlights how flight and use of aliases aggravate FTA sentencing.
6. State v. Donaldson (New York, 2016)
๐ Facts:
Donaldson failed to appear for arraignment on larceny charges.
Claimed notice was sent to the wrong address.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Charged with FTA under NY Penal Law ยง 215.58.
๐งพ Outcome:
Charges dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the notice was properly served.
๐ Significance:
Emphasizes the burden on the state to prove proper notification and intent.
๐ Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Case Illustration |
|---|---|
| FTA must be willful | State v. Martinez |
| Fear of conviction is not a defense | United States v. Felix |
| Proper notice is essential | State v. Donaldson |
| Use of false identity worsens FTA | United States v. Scott |
| Ignorance or confusion โ legal excuse | United States v. Thompson |
| FTA charges can be felonies | State v. Barnes |
โ Summary
Failure to Appear prosecutions serve to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Courts take these charges seriously, particularly when the underlying crime is severe or when the defendant takes additional steps to avoid arrest. A valid FTA charge generally requires:
Proof of notice,
Willful failure to comply, and
Lack of a justifiable reason.
Penalties can range from fines and additional charges to extended prison time, especially in federal court or when evasion is prolonged.
RELATED Blog
0 comments