Title: State v. Woodcock

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Woodcock  (98-261); 168 Vt. 588; 719 A.2d 32

[Filed 6-Jul-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98Ä261

                               JUNE TERM, 1998

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont
                                }     Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
James Bissell Woodcock          }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 768Ä6Ä98Wmcr

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

       The State appeals a district court order that ruled that an accused
  may not be held without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553a (person charged with
  violent felony may be held without bail under certain circumstances) unless
  the State shows a threat of physical violence to a specific individual. 
  Defendant is charged with armed robbery of a gas station, and the court
  ordered defendant to be released upon deposit of $25,000 bail, which
  defendant has been unable to pay. The State appeals to a single justice
  pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b) (person detained with conditions of release
  imposed), and the appeal is reviewed pursuant to V.R.A.P. 9(a).  I reverse.

       The controlling statute is 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, which reads:

     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.

  (Emphasis added.)  The court denied the State's request to hold defendant
  without bail, ruling, as a matter of law, that under this provision, the
  State must demonstrate a threat of physical violence to a particular
  individual.  As the court declared, "The State does not argue that Mr.
  Woodcock's wanton use of a gun against Mr. Parker poses an ongoing threat
  to Mr. Parker but rather the State argues that essentially Mr. Woodcock is
  a threat to society."  Accordingly, the court concluded that the State had
  not demonstrated the required particularized threat to an individual.

       Based on the statute's plain language, the legislative history and the
  Court's precedent, I conclude that the court incorrectly construed §
  7553(a).  First, the plain language of the statute ÄÄ "threat of physical
  violence to any person" ÄÄ indicates that the Legislature intended to allow
  denial of bail upon a showing of a general threat of danger to "any
  person," and did not intend to require a showing of a threat to a
  particularized individual.  See Russell v. Armitage, ___ Vt. ___, ___,