State v. Auclair

• Decision Date: 10 March 2020
• Docket Number: SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 20-054
• Citation: 229 A.3d 1019
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Vermont v. Angela M. AUCLAIR

229 A.3d 1019

STATE of Vermont

v.Angela M. AUCLAIR

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 20-054

Supreme Court of Vermont.

FEBRUARY TERM, 2020

March 10, 2020

ENTRY ORDER

¶ 1. Defendant appeals the trial court's decision to hold her without bail. She argues that although she is eligible to be held without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553, the trial court should have exercised its discretion to release her on bail. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm.

¶ 2. Defendant was charged with aiding in the commission of first-degree murder and obstruction of justice. Specifically, with regard to the first-degree murder charge, the information alleges that defendant knowingly participated in a common plan with her son to steal a firearm, knowing that her son would use the firearm to unlawfully kill her husband, David Auclair. That charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

¶ 3. The State moved to hold defendant without bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553. Section 7553 permits the court to hold a defendant without bail when the defendant is "charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment" and "the evidence of guilt is great." This Court has held that to determine whether the evidence of guilt is great, "the trial court applies the standard of proof articulated in Rule 12(d) of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure." State v. Orost, 2017 VT 110, ¶ 5, 206 Vt. 657, 179 A.3d 763 (mem.). If these requirements are met, a presumption against release arises. See State v. Ford, 2015 VT 127, ¶ 10, 200 Vt. 650, 130 A.3d 862 (mem.) ("A presumption against release arises if substantial, admissible evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, can fairly and reasonably show defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (quotation omitted)). "The trial court then must exercise its discretion in determining whether or not to impose bail and conditions of release." State v. Avgoustov, 2006 VT 90, ¶ 2, 180 Vt. 595, 907 A.2d 1185 (mem.). In doing so, it may look to the factors listed in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b). Ford, 2015 VT 127, ¶ 10, 200 Vt. 650, 130 A.3d 862.

¶ 4. The court held a weight-of-the-evidence hearing on December 23, 2019 and January 14, 2020. Following the hearing, defendant filed a post-hearing memorandum. She did not dispute that "the evidence of guilt [was] great" for the purposes of 13 V.S.A. § 7553. Instead, she argued that the court should exercise its discretion to return her to the community under the factors listed in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b).

¶ 5. The court found that the evidence of guilt was great and declined to release defendant because it found that several factors weighed against a discretionary grant of release. It relied most heavily on two findings. First, it found that defendant's mother—whom defendant had presented as a responsible adult who could oversee defendant's activities if she was released—was not fit for that role. Second, it found that defendant would not abide by any set of court-imposed conditions, based on evidence that she had repeatedly contacted an individual via telephone and email despite a condition prohibiting her from doing so. The trial court noted several other factors suggesting that defendant was a risk of flight, and found that defendant posed a potential danger to certain individuals if released. It therefore granted the State's motion to hold without bail. Defendant appealed.

¶ 6. We review the trial court's denial of discretionary bail for an abuse of discretion. Ford, 2015 VT 127, ¶ 8, 200 Vt. 650, 130 A.3d 862. "In exercising its discretion to release a defendant, the trial court may look to the factors listed in § 7554 ...." Id. ¶ 10. Those factors include:

the nature and circumstance of the offense charged; the weight of the evidence against the accused; and the accused's family ties, employment, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community, record of convictions, and record of appearance at court proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings. Recent history of actual violence or threats of violence may be considered by the judicial officer as bearing on the character and mental condition of the accused.

13 V.S.A. § 7554(b)(2). "Thus, the trial court's discretion is broad, but the bail decision cannot be arbitrary." Ford, 2015 VT 127, ¶ 10, 200 Vt. 650, 130 A.3d 862 (citing Avgoustov, 2006 VT 90, ¶ 2, 180 Vt. 595, 907 A.2d 1185 ). Because the court found great evidence of guilt in its § 7553 analysis, the "presumption is against release" and the burden is on the defendant to overcome that presumption. Id. ¶ 11.

¶ 7. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in several ways. She asserts that the court abused its discretion in: (1) concluding that she was a risk of flight; (2) relying on her violations of the court's order not to contact certain individuals; (3) concluding that defendant's mother could not serve as a responsible adult; (4) ignoring the weakness of the case against defendant; (5) ignoring several other factors listed in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) that were raised in her memorandum; and (6) concluding that she posed a danger to several individuals if released. We address each contention in turn.

¶ 8. Defendant first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in relying on the nature of the charges against her as a factor suggesting a risk of flight. Defendant emphasizes that she "was aware that she was facing a murder charge for five months between the time of her initial police contact and the date of her arrest." She remained in the community during this period even though, very early in the process, a detective told her, "I can't wait to arrest you." Under these circumstances, defendant asserts, "the [c]ourt's conclusion that the filing of charges suddenly made her a risk of flight is unsupported and highly speculative."

¶ 9. We conclude that the trial court's statements regarding the flight risk were reasonably supported. The trial court recognized that defendant had remained in the community during the investigation. However, it noted that the circumstances had changed after she was charged with a crime carrying a life sentence, for which the court found great evidence of guilt, creating an impetus for flight not present before her arrest. The court also found that defendant's ties to Vermont are "more tenuous than she represents," because she indicated at various times a desire to move to Pennsylvania and Florida. To the extent the trial court relied on these findings, it did not abuse its discretion.

¶ 10. Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in relying on defendant's violations of the court's order not to contact certain individuals. She asserts that those violations do not demonstrate that she would be either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. She also argues that the violations are not yet proven and rely on speculation.

¶ 11. The violations relate to defendant's continued contact with a person named John Turner. At arraignment on December 11, 2019, the court ordered defendant held without bail and imposed a requirement that defendant have no contact with several individuals related to the case, including Turner. Nevertheless, the court found, "from December 16-30, 2019, phone records show at least 40 calls from defendant to Mr. Turner; these calls were made to [defendant's mother's] home, referring to Turner by the pseudonym ‘Tim George.’ " Defendant's mother admitted that at least some of these conversations took place. In addition, after the January hearing, the State filed affidavits from a detective and correctional employee describing defendant's email contact with a "new, non-existent male, ‘Ted George.’ " The "Ted George" email account is registered to defendant's address, and investigators believe that the email account belongs to John Turner. Regardless of whether the violations have been proven in a separate proceeding, the trial court was within its discretion in relying on the evidence before it, including phone records, sworn affidavits, and the testimony of defendant's mother.

¶ 12. The trial court found that defendant's violations of the no-contact requirement demonstrate defendant's "willingness to engage in deceptive behavior designed to circumvent this court's orders, and ... lead ineluctably to the conclusion that she will not abide by any conditions of release." Defendant's willingness to comply with conditions of release is a factor that a court may consider in determining whether to release a defendant who is subject to being held without bail under § 7553. See, e.g., Orost, 2017 VT 110, ¶ 11, 206 Vt. 657, 179 A.3d 763 (holding court was within its discretion to consider violations of outstanding protective orders); State v. Henault, 2017 VT 19, ¶ 5, 204 Vt. 628, 167 A.3d 892 (mem.) (holding court was within its discretion to consider violations of terms of home detention). The court did not abuse its discretion in doing so here.

¶ 13. Third, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that her mother was not an acceptable responsible adult. She points out several facts that support her mother's ability to serve in this role: for instance, she has a residence available that would keep defendant away from others, she is home all the time, and she indicated a willingness to report any violation by defendant. Defendant also asserts that her mother "assisted the police in their effort to investigate" the issue of whether defendant was violating the no-contact condition.

¶ 14. We find no abuse of discretion. The trial court's decision that defendant's mother was not suited to serve as a responsible adult was supported by admissible evidence, much of it uncontested by defendant. The court found that defendant's mother showed little ability to control what occurs at her home and on her...