Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed orders denying Larry L. Labrecque bail, home detention, and bail review. The court held that 13 V.S.A. § 7557 is discretionary and that continued pretrial detention did not violate substantive due process under the applicable factors concerning the strength of the detention evidence, governmental responsibility for delay, and detention length.
Holdings
- Section 7557 is discretionary, not mandatory; the use of the word "may" means that the criminal division was not required to consider or impose conditions of release when the trial was postponed.
- The record did not establish any relevant conversation concerning home detention, and Labrecque failed to show harm or a basis for requiring consideration of his later home-detention application.
- Continued detention did not violate substantive due process because the evidence supporting detention remained strong, the relevant delays were attributable to neutral or justified circumstances rather than intentional or targeted governmental interference, and the length of detention, although at the limit of what was acceptable, was not dispositive by itself.
Questions Presented
- Whether 13 V.S.A. § 7557 required the criminal division to consider bail or conditions of release after postponement of Labrecque's trial.
- Whether prior discussions on the record required the criminal division to consider Labrecque's later application for home detention or otherwise established good cause for his delayed appeal.
- Whether continued pretrial detention violated substantive due process under the three-factor test concerning the strength of the evidence supporting detention, governmental responsibility for delay, and the length of detention.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (12)
- State v. Labrecque, 2022 VT 6(followed)
- State v. Labrecque, 2021 VT 58, 261 A.3d 632 (mem.)(followed)
- State v. Labrecque, 2020 VT 81, 249 A.3d 671 (mem.)(followed)
- State v. White, 2020 VT 62, ¶ 12, 212 Vt. 658, 237 A.3d 1235 (mem.)(followed)
- State v. Tarbell, 2021 VT 68, ¶ 14, 261 A.3d 1123 (mem.)(followed)
- United States v. Loera, 182 F. Supp. 3d 1173, 1206-07 (D.N.M. 2016)(applied alternatively)
- United States v. Briggs, 697 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 531 (1972)(followed)
- United States v. El-Hage, 213 F.3d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Miller v. Miller, 2005 VT 89, ¶ 14, 178 Vt. 273, 882 A.2d 1196(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…