Title: State v. Wood

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. 91-362


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
James E. Wood                                Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit

                                             June Term, 1991


David T. Suntag, J.

Peter Neary, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for plaintiff-
  appellee

Matt Harnett of Lorentz, Lorentz and Harnett, Rutland, for defendant-
  appellant



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   Defendant appeals an order setting bail at $5,000 cash or
surety (condition number 10, Condition of Release Order).  The trial court
set monetary bail solely because defendant was found to be a threat to the
integrity of the judicial process.  We reverse and remand.
                                    I.
     On July 15, 1991, defendant was arraigned on a charge of assaulting
his wife in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 1023(a)(1) (misdemeanor simple
assault).  The trial court set bail at $5,000 with conditions that defendant
not possess alcoholic beverages or contact his wife.
     Defendant was unable to post bail, and a bail review hearing was held
on July 19, 1991.  Defendant called the victim to testify.  She said in
effect that the incident was overblown and she wanted her husband released.
While the victim's testimony was found to mitigate the facts as initially
presented in the affidavit of probable cause and the victim's written state-
ment, the court disbelieved much of what she said.  The court found that
defendant had been convicted for simple assault twice before, one of them
upon his wife.  The court adopted findings made at arraignment that during a
drunken argument defendant threatened to kill his wife and then punched her
in the mouth, breaking a tooth and knocking her to the ground, continuing
to hit and threaten to kill her.
     The court concluded,
          cash bail was not imposed and is not being considered
          to remain in place due to any demonstrated risk to not
          appear which could not be covered by non monetary con-
          ditions of release.  Cash bail was imposed directly
          because of a ... danger to the integrity of the
          [judicial] process, specifically, the danger [and]
          threats ... to the particular victim in this case.

                                    II.

     Threat to the integrity of the judicial process has been recognized as
a ground to deny or revoke bail.   See, e.g., Hemingway v. Elrod,