Home Sweet Bail Hearing

Home?
State v. Boyer, 2018 VT 62 (mem.)

By Elizabeth Kruska

This is a really short bail opinion. Bail is meant to assure future appearance in court by an accused defendant. Generally, the vast presumption is in favor of release or bail, which can be posted or somehow satisfied through a surety. This is because when someone has been charged, but not convicted, of a crime, that person is presumed innocent. However, there are times when a person is charged with a serious-enough offense that it is presumed the person should be held without bail.

Bail gets set by a judge. Let me say that louder for folks in the back: bail gets set by a judge. Not by police. Not by prosecutors. By a judge. There are procedures available for contacting a judge after hours in the event bail needs to be set before a defendant can be seen in court. Bail status can change, and is always set and controlled by the court. Bail can take on different forms over the course of a criminal case.

In this case, Mr. Boyer was charged with various counts involving sexual assault on a minor. He was arrested, and an after-hours judge set bail at $10,000. Mr. Boyer posted that bail and appeared voluntarily in court on the appointed day and time. When he was seen by the judge at the time of his arraignment and bail hearing, the State sought to have him held without bail because the offenses have maximum sentences of life imprisonment. “Life” cases are eligible for a defendant to be held without bail.

That doesn’t mean that can’t be changed, though. Mr. Boyer filed a motion with the court to be released on home-detention status. Home detention is exactly what it sounds like: being detained in a home, as opposed to being detained in a prison. Vermont has a home detention program, which is administered by the Department of Corrections (DOC). DOC has rules for how to administer the program.

Mr. Boyer appeared in court for his hearing and proposed he be able to live with his mother in law. The court took some evidence, but felt like it needed more information about the proposed residence, and also more information about the home-detention-monitoring system. Everyone came back a week or so later and the court took more evidence.

At the close of the hearing the court denied Mr. Boyer’s motion for home detention. The court commented that, generally speaking, the way home detention is administered and monitored in that county worked well and seemed to operate the way the legislature intended. The court turned to the statutory factors and found that based on the seriousness of the case, Mr. Boyer’s prior criminal record, and the risk to third parties and public safety, that home detention was not appropriate. The motion was denied.

Mr. Boyer appeals, and SCOV affirms.

SCOV reviews the matter for abuse of discretion, and concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling. Mr. Boyer argues that because the trial court wanted information about the administration of the program, that it impermissibly based its decision on that information. SCOV disagrees and says the findings were based on evidence properly before the court. In fact, the court commended the operation of the home-detention program in the county and felt it generally works the way it is supposed to work.

So, SCOV affirms.

Comments