State v. Stevens

State v. Stevens (2002-240); 174 Vt. 450; 806 A.2d 1000

[Filed 07-Jun-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-240

                               JUNE TERM, 2002


State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Wayne H. Stevens, II           	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 3083 - 3085-5-02 Cncr


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Wayne Stevens appeals an order of the Chittenden District
  Court denying him  release on bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553a.  Because
  I find that there are conditions of release that  will reasonably prevent
  physical violence to any person, I reverse.

       For the purposes of determining bail, the undisputed facts are as
  follows: on May 11, 2002,  defendant and his girlfriend went to a bar, were
  drinking, and had an argument.  Defendant left the  bar, and his girlfriend
  went to her home with another man.  Later that night, defendant allegedly 
  broke into the home of his girlfriend in Milton, Vermont, and assaulted her
  and the other man who  was in the bedroom with her.  Defendant allegedly
  broke his girlfriend's arm and hit the other man in  the head.  Defendant
  was arrested the next morning at his mother's home in Milton.  Defendant
  was  arraigned on May 13, and charged with aggravated domestic assault,
  simple assault, and burglary.   Bail was set at $15,000, and defendant was
  released with conditions.  The State filed a motion to  deny release on
  bail, and a hearing was set for May 17.  Title 13 V.S.A. § 7553a provides:

    A person charged with an offense that is a felony, an element of
    which involves an act of violence against another person,  may be
    held without bail when the evidence of guilt is great  and the
    court finds, based upon clear and convincing  evidence, that the
    person's release poses a substantial threat of physical violence
    to any person and that no condition or combination of conditions
    of release will reasonably prevent the physical violence.	

  After hearing testimony from the victim and the arresting officer, the
  court found that the evidence of  guilt was great.  The court further found
  that defendant had a history of alcohol abuse and assaultive  behavior,
  including several prior arrests for assault and DUI.  The court concluded
  that based on this  history, there were no conditions of release that could
  reasonably protect the public.  Specifically,  however, the court's
  decision was based on concern for the public at large.  The same 

 

  judge granted a relief from abuse petition in which defendant, at the
  victim's request was allowed to  have contact with her as long as they met
  in a public place, and defendant was sober.  Defendant was  ordered held
  without bail, and defendant appealed.

       Title 13 V.S.A. § 7556(d) allows someone held without bail pursuant to
  § 7553a to "an  independent, second evidentiary hearing on the merits of
  the denial of bail, which shall be a hearing  de novo by a single justice
  of the supreme court."  However, "the parties may stipulate to the 
  admission of portions of the trial court record."  Id.  On appeal,
  defendant is not contesting the trial  court's finding that the evidence of
  guilt is great.  Therefore, both defendant and the State have  stipulated
  to the entire record, and this appeal was a de novo review of the denial of
  bail based on the  evidence presented below.  Further, both parties
  stipulated that the only issue on appeal was whether  there are any
  conditions that could reasonably prevent violence to any person.

       On review of the record before the Court, I find that there are
  conditions of release that could  reasonably prevent violence.  This
  decision is based on the fact that the victim does not appear to be  in
  danger, as she has requested contact with defendant and the relief from
  abuse order permits it.   Any danger defendant may pose to the public at
  large is related to his problems with alcohol abuse,  although it has been
  four years since defendant has been charged with a crime of violence.  Upon 
  representation by defense counsel, defendant has been admitted, pending
  release, to an in-patient  alcohol treatment facility, Maple Leaf Farm in
  Underhill, Vermont.  Therefore, based on the record  before me, I cannot
  find clear and convincing evidence that defendant's release poses a threat
  of  violence that cannot be prevented with conditions of release.

       Accordingly, I remand this case to the trial court for a determination
  of appropriate conditions  of release.  Those conditions shall include:
  defendant is to be released to the in-patient treatment  program at Maple
  Leaf Farm; defendant must successfully complete the residential program
  there;  and defendant must engage in any after-care program deemed
  necessary by Maple Leaf Farm.  Other  conditions of release may be imposed
  according to the discretion of the trial court.

       Reversed and remanded.



                                       FOR THE COURT:


                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice