Semecal

The People have appealed from an order reinstating bail after forfeiture. The real party in interest here is respondent United Bonding Insurance Company.

The issue presented concerns the trial court’s authority to forfeit an alleged misdemeanant’s bail where, without explanation, the defendant failed to appear for trial, either personally or by counsel. The resolution of that question raises a subsidiary question: May a defendant charged with a misdemeanor as contrasted with a felony be lawfully required to appear for trial ?

The factual record giving rise to the foregoing issue is summarized as follows:

On May 31, 1967, the defendant Semecal appeared for arraignment without counsel. She had previously been released on a surety bail bond posted by the respondent. She *987 was advised of her constitutional rights, pleaded not guilty, and demanded a jury trial. The trial date was set for June 26 at 9a.m., whereupon the court said: “You are ordered to be personally present at that time ready to proceed to trial, June 26, at 9. Mr. Bailiff, will you write the date and time down for the defendant. ’ ’

The trial date at the request of the district attorney was postponed to July 3.…