A quiet week in Montpelier (in terms of published opinions). One entry order on Tuesday the 17th; no opinions Friday.
Our lone entry order for the week is on a hold-without-bail order. The bottom line is this: don't stipulate that the evidence of guilt is great on any counts if you want to bring a challenge later. That's what happened in this case.
Mr. Wilson was charged with a few felonies and a habitual-offender enhancement. The State moved to hold him without bail. At the weight-of-the-evidence hearing, Mr. Wilson stipulated that the evidence was great on the two eluding-a-law-enforcement-officer charges (both felonies) but asked the trial court to exercise its discretion and release him.
The trial court declined to do so, reasoning that no combination of conditions would "adequately mitigate the risk of flight and danger to the public posed by defendant."
In a bit of a wrinkle that ended up not being a wrinkle, Mr. Wilson moved for bail review based on a plea deal and the trial court denied review of bail.
Mr. Wilson appeals. On appeal, he, according to SCOV, doesn't really touch on the denial of his motion for review, but instead argues the evidence of guilt is not great and that the trial court abused discretion in holding him without bail. Neither argument persuades SCOV. On the evidence-of-guilt-is-great piece, SCOV notes the stipulation and moves on. On the abuse-of-discretion piece, SCOV more or less says, "Look, the trial court had its reasons and we're not second-guessing today." And that, as they say is that. Trial court gets affirmed. State v. Wilson, 2024 VT 61 (mem.)
Great insights on bail orders! Your explanation of the "no surprises" principle clarifies the importance of transparency in the bail process. Thanks for shedding light on this crucial topic!
ReplyDelete