Title: State v. Passino

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
 
 
                                No. 90-163
 
 
State of Vermont                             Supreme Court
 
     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Arthur Passino                               Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit
 
                                             April Term, 1990
 
 
Ronald F. Kilburn, J.
 
James A. Hughes, Franklin County Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans, for
   plaintiff-appellee
 
Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate
   Defender, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
     DOOLEY, J.   This is a bail appeal, brought to this Court pursuant to
13 V.S.A. { 7556(b), and referred to the full Court for decision because of
the issues involved.  As in all such cases, the question before us is
whether the decision of the trial court is "supported by the proceedings
below."  Id.  For reasons discussed in greater detail below, we find that
the decision is not fully supported and remand for further proceedings.
     Defendant, Arthur Passino, is charged with murder in the first degree
in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2301.  The maximum punishment for murder in the
first degree is imprisonment for life.  13 V.S.A. { 2303(a).  Because the
defendant is charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment, the
State sought that he be held without bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. { 7553,
which provides that a defendant is not "bailable as a matter of right" if
charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the evidence of
guilt is great.  This section implements Chapter II, { 40 of the Vermont
Constitution.  See State v. Duff, 151 Vt. ___, ___, 563 A.2d 258, 261
(1989).
     The trial court, acting in response to the State's request, held a bail
hearing over a three-day period and took extensive evidence to determine
the case against defendant.  On March 23, 1990, it issued findings of fact
and conclusions of law, finding that "there is substantial, admissible
evidence of the guilt of Arthur Passino" and that the evidence was
sufficient to "fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a
reasonable doubt" that defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree.
It ordered defendant held without bail.
     Defendant does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to support
the court's conclusion and order under the standards announced in State v.
Duff.  Instead, defendant argues that the order cannot be sustained
because:  (1) the court failed to exercise its discretion to consider
releasing defendant on bail despite the court's findings and the nature of
the charge; and (2) the court erred in relying on evidence obtained in
violation of defendant's rights under Miranda v. Arizona,