State v. Blodgett

• Decision Date: 11 June 2021
• Docket Number: SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2021-113
• Citation: 2021 VT 47
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: State of Vermont v. Daniel Blodgett

2021 VT 47

State of Vermont v. Daniel Blodgett

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2021-113

Supreme Court of Vermont

JUNE TERM, 2021

June 11, 2021

ENTRY ORDER

APPEALED FROM:

Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Criminal Division

DOCKET NO. 21-CR-01872

Trial Judge: Michael S. Kupersmith (Ret.)

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

¶ 1. Defendant Daniel Blodgett is charged with sexual assault under 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(1). The trial court ordered him held without bail pending trial, as is permissible under 13 V.S.A. § 7553 where a defendant is charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is great. Defendant appeals the order denying his release. 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b).

I. Factual & Procedural Background

¶ 2. The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. Defendant was initially held without bail at his arraignment on March 17, 2021. At a weight-of-the-evidence hearing on April 29, the court heard testimony from the alleged victim of the charged sexual assault, A.Q.; defendant's probation officer; and defendant's mother.

¶ 3. A.Q. testified as follows. She and defendant were previously in a relationship, and the two have a child together. Following their breakup, when defendant was "between girlfriends," he expected A.Q. to allow him to stay over at her home, and she did. Around March 7, 2018, defendant arrived at A.Q.'s home with a twelve-pack of beer and a pint of tequila; he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. After A.Q. allowed defendant to enter, he began drinking.

¶ 4. At some point, the two entered A.Q.'s bedroom and began to have consensual sex. A.Q. explained that "it grew violent pretty quickly, as it often did when [defendant] was drinking," noting that when defendant was intoxicated, he "liked to inflict pain during sex." Defendant placed his fingers inside A.Q.'s vagina and anus, grabbing her and then pulling and throwing her body around. A.Q. did not consent to these acts, repeatedly asking him to stop. Instead of stopping, defendant "tried to forcefully initiate anal sex." At no time had A.Q. consented to have anal sex. When A.Q. pushed defendant away and informed him that she had no interest in continuing the encounter, he took a lit cigarette and burnt her groin with it in an area very close to her anus. He then threw her sideways off her bed. A.Q. told defendant she was "done," and was going to sleep on her couch. At this point, defendant threw a nearly full can of beer at A.Q.'s face. She left her bedroom and laid down on the couch.

¶ 5. Defendant followed A.Q. and informed her that she was to return to the bedroom, even if she was not going to continue the sexual encounter. She did so, and defendant "passed out fairly quickly." However, their six-year-old daughter had been awakened by the noise. A.Q. went to their daughter's room to comfort her and fell asleep in the daughter's bed.

¶ 6. Later that night, defendant woke up and realized that A.Q. was no longer in bed with him. He entered their daughter's room to retrieve A.Q., telling her to "get the fuck out of [their daughter's] bed and go back to the bedroom." A.Q. refused, telling defendant that she was going to remain with their daughter. Defendant responded by grabbing A.Q. by her hair, wrapping it around his hands, and using it to drag her backward down the hall.

¶ 7. Upon seeing this, their daughter began "screaming hysterically" and attempting to follow her mother into the bedroom. Defendant told A.Q. to stay in her bedroom, instructing her that she was not to go console their daughter. He took their daughter, still crying and screaming, and placed her back in her bed, telling her that she needed to go back to sleep and "had better not get the fuck out of her bed."

¶ 8. Defendant then returned to A.Q.'s bedroom and either fell asleep or passed out. The next day, he claimed to have no memory of his actions the night before.

¶ 9. Defendant's probation officer testified that defendant had been under her supervision beginning in September of 2020 in connection with a conviction for prohibited conduct. The case arose from an incident in which defendant was drinking at the home of a woman with whom he regularly had intercourse. The woman's roommate had a young daughter. Defendant, intoxicated, went into the girl's bedroom, got into bed with her, and tried to pull her pants down. As a result, defendant was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, but pleaded guilty to prohibited conduct pursuant to an agreement with the State.

¶ 10. As a condition of his probation for the prohibited-conduct conviction, defendant was required to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and comply with any resulting recommendations. The evaluation resulted in a recommendation that he make an appointment with the Howard Center; he did so, but the appointment was cancelled "because of a Zoom issue." The probation officer did not know whether the technical issue was attributable to defendant or to the Howard Center.

¶ 11. In February of 2021, defendant was charged with sexual assault by using a drug to impair. He was released on conditions following his arraignment, including $15,000 bail with a $1500 cash deposit and a twenty-four-hour curfew at his mother's home with limited exceptions, including going to work. He was also ordered not to purchase, possess, or consume alcohol.

¶ 12. On March 1, 2021, defendant was charged with violation of his conditions of probation in the prohibited-conduct case. Defendant's probation officer placed him on GPS monitoring as a condition of his release on the pending probation violation. In response to inquiry from the court, she explained that while a GPS unit reports a person's location in real time, the probation office only monitors it during work hours. The unit can be removed using wire cutters.

¶ 13. The probation officer remained in contact with defendant until he was incarcerated in connection with the instant sexual-assault charge. Aside from failing to charge his GPS unit on the first day he had it—an omission which did not reoccur after he was informed that he needed to charge the unit daily—the probation officer was not aware that he violated any other conditions of release during this time.

¶ 14. Finally, defendant's mother testified that defendant resided with her between his February 10, 2021 arraignment for sexual assault and his March 17, 2021 arraignment on the instant sexual-assault charge. Defendant's uncle, who has developmental issues, also lives in the home. Defendant's mother testified that during this time, defendant was working for UPS, but has since lost that job due to his incarceration.

¶ 15. Defendant's mother indicated that if the court released defendant on conditions, he could come live with her, and that she would be willing to review his conditions of release and report to law enforcement should he violate them. She agreed that defendant has an "alcohol issue," and indicated she would let law enforcement know if he was drinking in violation of his conditions of release.

¶ 16. On the basis of this evidence, the court concluded that the evidence of defendant's guilt was great and declined to exercise its discretion to release defendant. Defendant appeals.

II. Analysis

¶ 17. Defendant raises three challenges to the order holding him without bail. First, he contends that the trial court erred in determining that the evidence of his guilt was great. Second, he argues that the court failed to appropriately consider the factors at 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) when it declined to release him. Finally, defendant posits that, in the context of the emergency order suspending jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic, his rights under Articles 10 and 12 of the Vermont Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution are abridged because he will not be tried within ninety days of his arraignment. We consider each of these arguments in turn.

¶ 18. A person charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment may be held without bail prior to trial when the evidence of guilt is great. Vt. Const. ch. II, § 40(1); 13 V.S.A. § 7553. Here, defendant is charged with sexual assault under 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(1); if convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 13 V.S.A. § 3271(b). Courts determine whether the evidence of guilt is great by considering whether substantial, admissible evidence of guilt, taken in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, can fairly and reasonably convince a factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of the charged offense. State v. Hardy, 2008 VT 119, ¶ 10, 184 Vt. 618, 965 A.2d 478 (mem.); State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 440, 563 A.2d 258, 263 (1989). In reviewing the court's ruling on this point, we consider the record below, but "independently determine[] whether the standard has been met." State v. Orost, 2017 VT 110, ¶ 5, 206 Vt. 657, 179 A.3d 763 (mem.); State v. Ford, 2015 VT 127, ¶¶ 8, 200 Vt. 650, 130 A.3d 862 (mem.).

¶ 19. To obtain a conviction for sexual assault under § 3252(a)(1), the State must show that defendant intentionally engaged in a sexual act with another person and compelled the other person to participate in the act without consent. "Sexual act" is defined as "conduct between persons consisting of contact between the penis and the vulva, the penis and the anus, the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or any intrusion, however slight, by any part of a person's body or any object into the genital or anal opening of another." 13 V.S.A. § 3251(1). " 'Consent' means words or actions by a person indicating a voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act." Id. § 3251(3).

¶ 20. Defendant argues that the court erred in finding that the evidence of his guilt was great because A.Q. testified that: the encounter was initially consensual; defendant "tried" to place his penis in her anus, not that he in fact did so; and she pushed...