Still Missing CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *arrest* #88

[Seattle1]

Once he determined that BM was eligible for bail, the judge was constrained by law to use the least restrictive conditions necessary to accomplish the purposes of bail, as follows:

Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 16-4-103(3)(a) The type of bond and conditions of release shall be sufficient to reasonably ensure the appearance of the person as required and to protect the safety of any person or the community, taking into consideration the individual characteristics of each person in custody, including the person's financial condition.

^^rsbbm

I believe we earlier discussed capital cases quite extensively where CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE (i.e., 1st- degree murder - capital cases) provides that the judge is not constrained to the least restrictive conditions and where the judge is given discretion to set the bail amount:

The prosecution asked for a $10 million bond. In response, the defense asked for "an amount that is reasonable" — a $50,000 cash bond.

Judge Murphy said $10 million was too high and $50,000 was too low. He set the bond for $500,000, cash only. Bond cannot be posted until noon on Monday, he said.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...-judge-rules-barry-morphew-will-head-to-trial

This section confers absolute right to bail in all cases, except for capital offenses, where the proof is evident and the presumption is great that the accused committed the crime. Gladney v. District Court, 188 Colo. 365, 535 P.2d 190 (1975); L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1981).

This section in effect changes the common law so as to confer an absolute right to bail after indictment in all other felonies than capital cases. Proofs may be required in determining the amount of bail, but the right thereto is no longer a matter of judicial inquiry or discretion. In re Losasso, 15 Colo. 163, 24 P. 1080, 10 L.R.A. 847 (1890); Shanks v. District Court, 153 Colo. 332, 385 P.2d 990 (1963).

Bail, as a matter of right, for all but the most heinous crimes, has been recognized in Colorado. People ex rel. Dunbar v. District Court, 179 Colo. 304, 500 P.2d 358 (1972)

https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ccjj/Committees/BailSub/Handouts/CO_Constitution_ArtII-Sec-19-20.pdf

 

[CGray123]

^^rsbbm

I believe we earlier discussed capital cases quite extensively where CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE (i.e., 1st- degree murder - capital cases) provides that the judge is not constrained to the least restrictive conditions and where the judge is given discretion to set the bail amount:

The prosecution asked for a $10 million bond. In response, the defense asked for "an amount that is reasonable" — a $50,000 cash bond.

Judge Murphy said $10 million was too high and $50,000 was too low. He set the bond for $500,000, cash only. Bond cannot be posted until noon on Monday, he said.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...-judge-rules-barry-morphew-will-head-to-trial

This section confers absolute right to bail in all cases, except for capital offenses, where the proof is evident and the presumption is great that the accused committed the crime. Gladney v. District Court, 188 Colo. 365, 535 P.2d 190 (1975); L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1981).

This section in effect changes the common law so as to confer an absolute right to bail after indictment in all other felonies than capital cases. Proofs may be required in determining the amount of bail, but the right thereto is no longer a matter of judicial inquiry or discretion. In re Losasso, 15 Colo. 163, 24 P. 1080, 10 L.R.A. 847 (1890); Shanks v. District Court, 153 Colo. 332, 385 P.2d 990 (1963).

Bail, as a matter of right, for all but the most heinous crimes, has been recognized in Colorado. People ex rel. Dunbar v. District Court, 179 Colo. 304, 500 P.2d 358 (1972)

https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ccjj/Committees/BailSub/Handouts/CO_Constitution_ArtII-Sec-19-20.pdf

I'm confused. Are you saying that the judge, having decided that the proof is not evident and the presumption is not great and that therefore BM is eligible for bail, is NOT constrained by the statute?

 

[Seattle1]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the judge, having decided that the proof is not evident and the presumption is not great and that therefore BM is eligible for bail, is NOT constrained by the statute?

No, going back to the half-million cash-only bail, and OP's suggestion that the court is restricted by statute to set a bond the defendant can afford, I'm saying that with the exception of PEPG, the offense of capital murder is a condition of conduct not mandated by statute, whereby the judge has/had the discretion to set the type/amount of bail.

 

[al66pine]

Bail Amts?

^^bbmq
I believe the notion comes from the fact given the published demographics of Salida/Maysville area, I think it's fair to say that 99% of the residents found in BM's position would NOT be able to satisfy the terms of his bail release or $500,000 cash-only bond. Another resident would be sitting in jail waiting for trial. It's really that simple -- and nothing to do with the judicial decision.

@Seattle1 Thanks for your post. bbm gbm
Agreeing that a significant percentage of Salida/Maysville residents, if charged w same crimes as BM, would not be able to meet ^ $ 500,000 cash-only bail.

If those other residents were charged w same crimes as BM, would bail be set at $500,000? Or at a considerably lower figure, but still high enough to assure defendant will appear at the time and place required to answer to criminal charges. ? IDK. Seattle1? Anyone?

 

[FromGermany1]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

December 1999 – Barry and Suzanne Purchase 26040 Cal Carson Rd, Arcadia, IN
Private, Gated Estate Home on 10 Acres!

November 2013 – Suzanne Inherits $208,000 upon the Passing of her Mother.
Melinda Baumunk provided documents that Suzanne inherited approximately $208,000 in 2013 at the passing of her mother. She inherited another approximate $217,000 when her grandmother passed away in 2016.

August 2016 – Suzanne inherits $217,000 upon the death of a grandmother.
Suzanne’s grievance list included multiple references to Barry controlling the finances.

April 12, 2018 – The Morphew’s Purchase 19057 Puma Path
Barry and Suzanne Morphew purchase 19057 Puma Path for $1,575,000.​

If the marriage wasn't in 2018, what it had been before, did BM buy the new home with the ulterior motive to thoroughly "bury" Suzanne's inheritence within the purchase?? May have been a nice cunning way (for him) to make her staying at his side?

 

[FromGermany1]

I think BM knew it all, including the reason SM took up biking. I've always imagined it gave him a satisfying and sadistic thrill to hurl that bike down into that ravine.

Oh, Suzanne, ....... (looking fake-desperate) it's your own fault (that I'm doing this and all things more worse).
SD certainly owns a bicycle herself, so he hadn't to save it for her (stingy as he is).

 

[CGray123]

No, going back to the half-million cash-only bail, and OP's suggestion that the court is restricted by statute to set a bond the defendant can afford, I'm saying that with the exception of PEPG, the offense of capital murder is a condition of conduct not mandated by statute, whereby the judge has/had the discretion to set the type/amount of bail.

Let's see if I understand now. Are you saying the constraints of the bail statute do not apply to a person charged with Murder in the First Degree because it is a capital offense, and that Judge M had the discretion effectively to deny bail by setting a cash bond so high BM could not have paid it? Sorry to be so thick...

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Let's see if I understand now. Are you saying the constraints of the bail statute do not apply to a person charged with Murder in the First Degree because it is a capital offense, and that Judge M had the discretion effectively to deny bail by setting a cash bond so high BM could not have paid it? Sorry to be so thick...

I think that is how it reads. However if he set it to an impossibly high measure that there was no probable way Barry would have been able to meet the bond that would have caused a motion by defense to lower it to a level that was achievable but at the same time caused Barry to conform with the terms. The judge did the right thing in choosing a number that wasn’t going to result in a legal challenge. Bond and bail is not punitive in my opinion it is used as a deterrent. A half a million dollars cash is a huge amount of money to deter Barry from bolting or not complying with the terms in my opinion. It is an amount that seems to be in line with Colorado and this was a cash bond which was an additional hurdle

 

[DizzyB]

I think that is how it reads. However if he set it to an impossibly high measure that there was no probable way Barry would have been able to meet the bond that would have caused a motion by defense to lower it to a level that was achievable but at the same time caused Barry to conform with the terms. The judge did the right thing in choosing a number that wasn’t going to result in a legal challenge. Bond and bail is not punitive in my opinion it is used as a deterrent. A half a million dollars cash is a huge amount of money to deter Barry from bolting or not complying with the terms in my opinion. It is an amount that seems to be in line with Colorado and this was a cash bond which was an additional hurdle

I do agree with you on the bail amount, especially because it’s Barry. I don’t think he would be willing to part with half a million to flee. I’m sure he thinks he will never see the inside of a jail cell again. Can we agree that at bare minimum, his bail is funded by Suzanne’s inheritance?

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I do agree with you on the bail amount, especially because it’s Barry. I don’t think he would be willing to part with half a million to flee. I’m sure he thinks he will never see the inside of a jail cell again. Can we agree that at bare minimum, his bail is funded by Suzanne’s inheritance?

Lol no I can’t agree to that statement. We have no idea of his financial status. He could easily have. Stashed another half million with family members or an account somewhere. Barry was the primary income earner so if the prosecutors guesstimate that he was worth over 2 million Suzanne’s contribution was a quarter of the total and highly likely all their revenue was comingled. So,no, I could never state with certainty that Barry has spent to date more than 1.5 million or more or that 2 million was how much they had together. We just don’t know. It is an emotionally based statement that he spent ( past tense) Suzanne’s $500,000 that she brought to the marriage.

 

[Megnut]

Suzanne's stake in marital is greater than her inheritance. In my interpretation of marital equity, she was coequal. Half.

Barry has $500,000 on the line.

Plus whatever he's shelled out for retainers.

If he's done that all, while carefully reserving Suzanne's rightful share, I'll share a steak with him. I'm a'gonna need my own plate though.

Furthermore, if Barry manipulated Suzanne in any way to comingle her inheritance into joint funds for real estate, with the assurance he'd pay her back, how awful. Controlling. Dependency building. Trapping.

But then he's an expert trapper. From what I read, it's a whole lot easier with tranquilizer darts.

JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

She could get probably 50 percent of the marital assets in a divorce. She would be short sighted to settle for $500,000. Barry brought alot more than that to the marriage over the decades. But perhaps she would have settled for that inheritance money that everyone seems so fixated on to get out of the marriage for JL. We just don’t know.

 

[CGray123]

I think that is how it reads. However if he set it to an impossibly high measure that there was no probable way Barry would have been able to meet the bond that would have caused a motion by defense to lower it to a level that was achievable but at the same time caused Barry to conform with the terms. The judge did the right thing in choosing a number that wasn’t going to result in a legal challenge. Bond and bail is not punitive in my opinion it is used as a deterrent. A half a million dollars cash is a huge amount of money to deter Barry from bolting or not complying with the terms in my opinion. It is an amount that seems to be in line with Colorado and this was a cash bond which was an additional hurdle

IDK, I am not a Constitutional scholar.

But it seems to me that unless the proof is evident and the presumption great, all persons are eligible for bail according to Section 16-4-101 (1)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes, which reads in pertinent part:

"§ 16-4-101. Bailable offenses - definitions

(1) All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except:

(a) For capital offenses when proof is evident or presumption is great;"

Following the words, I look to Section 16-4-103 (1) and see that the bail standards set forth in that section apply - even to capital offenses - if there is no finding that proof is evident or presumption is great, because the exception in Section 16-4-101(1) does not apply:

"§ 16-4-103. Setting and selection type of bond--criteria

(1) At the first appearance of a person in custody before any court or any person designated by the court to set bond, the court or person shall determine the type of bond and conditions of release unless the person is subject to the provisions of section 16-4-101 ."

The words seem crystal clear to me.

If I were BM and effectively denied bail because the judge found me eligible but required a $50 million cash bond, I would file a special action directly in the Colorado Supreme Court arguing, (1) Colorado no longer has a capital offense because the death penalty was repealed, and (2) such a high bond violates the standards set forth in Section 16-4-103. For these reasons, BM's eligible for bail on the least restrictive terms consistent with the purposes of bail.

MOO as a non-attorney, of course.

 

[CGray123]

She could get probably 50 percent of the marital assets in a divorce. She would be short sighted to settle for $500,000. Barry brought alot more than that to the marriage over the decades. But perhaps she would have settled for that inheritance money that everyone seems so fixated on to get out of the marriage for JL. We just don’t know.

On top of her share of the marital assets, she would have been eligible for spousal maintenance in an amount that would keep her lifestyle as near what it was in marriage as possible.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

On top of her share of the marital assets, she would have been eligible for spousal maintenance in an amount that would keep her lifestyle as near what it was in marriage as possible.

Agree. A lot more than the money she brought to the marriage through the two inheritances.

 

[CGray123]

Agree. A lot more than the money she brought to the marriage through the two inheritances.

Hers, rightly and justly, notwithstanding BM's contribution to it. I do not see BM as victimized financially in a divorce. He would, no doubt.

 

[DizzyB]

Suzanne and Barry were married for 26 years, during which time he built up his business/es. Suzanne had not worked for most of that time. I would imagine that Suzanne would have been entitled to spousal support, half of their assets and Barry might have even had to cough up a chunk of his business worth, if it actually was worth anything. A forensic accountant could be involved with all of the dealings and land sales and the moving of money. I don’t think Suzanne would have left empty handed.

On another note, has it even been determined what Suzanne had been studying right before she disappeared?

 

[marylamby]

If the marriage wasn't in 2018, what it had been before, did BM buy the new home with the ulterior motive to thoroughly "bury" Suzanne's inheritence within the purchase?? May have been a nice cunning way (for him) to make her staying at his side?

I don't know about CO but in NY, if one spouse uses an inheritance to buy or finance a home, once the other spouse moves in it's then a joint asset unless they have a pre or post nuptial agreement stating otherwise.
I totally believe he insisted on the move for the reasons you say and to have her isolated from from those closest to her who she'd confide in.

 

[Knox]

I think BM knew it all, including the reason SM took up biking. I've always imagined it gave him a satisfying and sadistic thrill to hurl that bike down into that ravine.

Yes. IMO- it's part of the same thrill he continues to get today. BM thinks he killed Suzanne and her body will never be found. He's winning and will never be convicted.

Honestly if his attorney's are able to get him off, I'll lose my faith in the American Justice System completely. I'm that convinced he murdered Suzanne.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

I don't know about CO but in NY, if one spouse uses an inheritance to buy or finance a home, once the other spouse moves in it's then a joint asset unless they have a pre or post nuptial agreement stating otherwise.
I totally believe he insisted on the move for the reasons you say and to have her isolated from from those closest to her who she'd confide in.

Did he insist on the move though? Suzanne’s sister said she picked the house out and from all indications was not opposed to the move and fresh start. Trepidatious perhaps but that would be a normal reaction to a move to another state. We don’t know that it was all Barry’s idea or that Suzanne was not onboard.