State v. O'neal

In State v. O'Neal, 108 N.C. App. 661, 424 S.E.2d 680 (1993), the Court stated: While it is clear from the statute that the judicial official imposing pretrial release must consider these factors, it is less certain what record he must make of his considerations. In State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535, 369 S.E.2d 558 (1988), the record appears to have contained specific findings of fact by the trial court regarding the conduct of the magistrate in setting bail. Based on these findings, our Supreme Court concluded that the statute had been violated to the detriment of the defendants. Knoll, 322 N.C. at 545-47, 369 S.E.2d at 564-65. This Court, in State v. Overton, 60 N.C. App. 1, 298 S.E.2d 695 (1982), . . . noted that the judicial official determining the conditions of pretrial release was required to consider the factors in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-534(c), but made no indication that a written record of that consideration existed, nor that the lack of such a writing would warrant the conclusion that the factors had not been properly considered. Overton, 60 N.C. App. at 32-33, 298 S.E.2d at 714 (based on the statutory factors, $ 1 million bail was not unreasonable for conspiracy to manufacture, to sell or deliver, or to possess heroin). The defendant in the present case correctly asserts that the record is devoid of any written findings regarding the imposition of the secured bond, and there is no indication that the trial judge considered the factors in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-534(c) when he established the conditions of the defendant's pre-trial release. . . . Section 15A-534(c) requires the judicial official to consider the factors listed but does not require him to keep a written record of such consideration. We are, therefore, not willing to conclude, as the defendant contends, that the absence of such findings in the record indicates noncompliance with the statute. . . . Neither the transcript from the pretrial hearing, nor anything else in the record, indicates that the judge did not consider the appropriate factors in either the initial establishment of the bond, in the later modification, or in subsequent refusals to modify. Absent some evidence to the contrary from the defendant, we must conclude that the law relating to pretrial release was properly applied to him. 108 N.C. App. at 664-65, 424 S.E.2d at 682.