Bail and Discretion: August 14, 2024

Not much funny here

By Andy Delaney 

Only one decision this week. It issued on the 14th and is an entry order on a hold-without-bail order, or as we sometimes call it here, a HWOB order. 

Defendant was busting into his ex's and her boyfriend's place, when they called the police (because they saw defendant on their house camera) from the court where the ex was getting a relief-from-abuse order for an earlier-that-day event. An officer showed up and defendant claimed he had permission to be there. This was not true. When the officer got the ex on the phone and the officer asked the ex whether she wanted to press charges, defendant wrestled his way into his truck and took off. 

Defendant proceeded to drive through the City of Rutland at speeds up to and exceeding 80 mph. Tragically, he smashed right into a police cruiser coming from the opposite direction, killing officer Jessica Ebbighausen and injuring others. For a little while, defendant was out on bail, supervised by his sister. Then the State filed a superseding information with seven counts, including second-degree aggravated murder, and moved to hold defendant without bail. 

The trial court concluded that the evidence of guilt was great and that defendant should be held without bail. 

Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence of guilt was great and that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him held without bail.

SCOV deals with the weight-of-the-evidence issue first. The first problem defendant alleges is the introduction of expert reports at his bail hearing was wrong. SCOV disagrees, reasoning that the evidence was relevant and reliable and met the Rule 702 and Daubert standards. SCOV rejects defendant's claims that the methodology must be "generally accepted" in the scientific community to be admissible, noting that that's only one of four Daubert factors. No abuse of discretion here. 

SCOV next turns to the evidence of intent, which defendant contends was lacking. SCOV disagrees, noting that defendant headed straight for the cruiser at a high rate of speed, all while he had to be able to see the lights and hear the sirens. There was no evasive maneuvering. Defendant didn't hit the brakes. Accordingly, there's sufficient evidence of intent. 

Finally, we turn to whether the trial court abused discretion when it declined to release defendant on conditions. Here, SCOV concludes that the trial court was justified in making the HWOB order. First, defendant argues that the trial court committed clear error when it found that his sister had had difficulty supervising him in the past. SCOV notes that while sister was willing to supervise defendant, she did, in fact, have a hard time with it the first time before the new charges hit. Next, defendant argues that the trial court gave undue weight to the nature of the charges. SCOV notes that the charges themselves stem from flight to avoid prosecution. Finally, defendant argues that if his sister could supervise before, she should be able to supervise now. But we have new charges and increased incentive to flee. 

This one gets affirmed. State v. Rheaume, 2024 VT 53 (mem.)