 |
| What's the connection? You tell us. |
By Elizabeth Kruska
This is a bail appeal, so it’s fairly short and was heard by three justices.
Mr. Stimpson was initially charged with domestic assault in June of 2017. He pled not guilty to the charge and was released on some conditions of release, including that he could not have contact with the complainant and had to stay at least 300 feet away from her, her home, and her workplace. No monetary bail was set.
This is pretty common. What is less common is what happened next.
Mr. Stimpson, rather than follow the court order, went over to the complainant’s work and threatened to burn it down. Then a few weeks later, he went over to her house and somehow they ended up in his truck together. He drove down the road really fast with her hanging onto the truck and eventually jumping out and running into her house. He followed her with the truck as she ran. Somewhat unsurprisingly, he got arrested for this.
A few weeks later he went over to her house again, yelled at her child, and when she said she’d call the police, he threatened to kill her.
The State then moved to revoke his conditions of release and have him held without bail. The trial court did that and he appeals. Spoiler alert: SCOV affirms.
So, here’s the thing. The vast majority of the time, defendants are entitled to bail. Defendants can only be held without bail in certain serious crimes (this one is serious, of course, but doesn’t fit the statute, so we’re moving on), or when a defendant “intimidate[s] or harasse[s] a victim, potential witness, juror or judicial officer in violation of a condition of release.” Or, if a defendant violates a condition of release which constitutes a threat to the integrity of the judicial system.
In this situation, the court has to have a hearing and make findings that there really is a threat to the judicial process as a result of the defendant’s violating his conditions of release. Bail can’t be revoked just for a breach of conditions of release—there’s got to be more to it.
They had a hearing and the complainant testified she wasn’t afraid of the defendant. But the court found that she was there testifying about it only because he violated his conditions of release by trying to run her over with his truck. The court found that the defendant’s actions were sufficient to endanger the alleged victim several times, and that it was enough to support revoking his bail.
SCOV affirms, finding that the proceedings in the trial court supported the findings that Mr. Stimpson’s pattern of behavior constituted a threat to the process.
Comments
Post a Comment