 |
| The "art department" is particularly lazy this week |
One three-justice published entry order this week.
Mr. Buell faced (and still faces) multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. These types of charges—as in, charges carrying a potential life sentence—often result in a HWOB (hold without bail) order because there's a presumption for HWOB when the evidence of guilt is great. The trial court does have discretion to release someone on bail after considering the circumstances. Now, while Mr. Buell conceded that the evidence of guilt was great, he contended that he should be released on bail due to his complex medical needs. The trial court looked at Mr. Buell's criminal record, which included several felony and misdemeanor charges; the details of the offense (choking incidents and threats against the complainant’s life), and a proposed neighborly custodian who happened to live just a little too close to complainant for comfort. The trial court concluded that Mr. Buell should be held without bail and that DOC was obligated to and would have to deal with his medical needs.
Mr. Buell appeals, arguing that DOC hasn't been responsive to his medical situation. He also claims neighbor/proposed custodian could help him access necessary treatment. Due to these factors, Mr. Buell contends that the trial court ought to have released him on conditions.
SCOV affirms. We're in abuse-of-discretion land, and as most of our regular and not-so-regular readers know, this is not a good place for an appellant to be. SCOV notes that public safety and the seriousness of the allegations support the HWOB order. SCOV also reasons that the trial court explicitly considered Mr. Buell's medical conditions and reasoned that those concerns were outweighed by competing public-safety concerns. Accordingly, SCOV concludes that the trial court acted well within its broad discretion in denying bail. State v. Buell, 2025 VT 57 (mem.)
Comments
Post a Comment