Summary
This Vermont Supreme Court entry order reviews a defendant's appeal from a superior court's decision to hold him without bail pending trial on charges of first-degree aggravated domestic assault. The court explains that when evaluating conflicting sworn statements during a bail hearing, it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State without resolving credibility disputes or predicting trial testimony. After considering the complainant's initial audio statement, the defendant's prior criminal history, and the substantial risk of future violence, the court affirms the denial of bail.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State satisfied the “evidence of guilt is great” requirement of 13 V.S.A. § 7553a.
- Whether out‑of‑court statements and conflicting testimony must be considered under the confrontation clause in a bail appeal.
- Whether the defendant may be released on conditions pending trial.
Holdings
- The evidence of guilt was great; the State met its burden and the defendant must be held without bail.
- Defendant shall be held without bail pursuant to § 7553a; no conditions of release are appropriate.
- The court declined to consider the confrontation‑clause issue because it was not properly briefed; the out‑of‑court statements were admissible under the bail‑appeal standard.
Key quotations
“The court must view the statements in the light most favorable to the State and disregard any modifying effects.” (*5)
“In order to hold a defendant without bail, the State must “establish by affidavits, depositions, sworn oral testimony, or other admissible evidence that it has substantial, admissible evidence as to the elements of the offense.”” (*4)
Factual background
Defendant Jason Robinson was arrested on December 25, 2024 and charged with first‑degree aggravated domestic assault. At a weight‑of‑the‑evidence hearing the trial court held him without bail because the offense involved violence, the evidence of guilt was great, and his release posed a substantial threat of physical violence. The State presented a sworn audio statement describing a throat‑grabbing assault, while the complainant later recanted much of that statement at the de novo hearing.
Procedural history
The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division held the defendant without bail after a weight‑of‑the‑evidence hearing. The defendant appealed, and a de novo evidentiary hearing was held on January 27, 2025. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal de novo.