State v. Churchill
| Decision Date | 02 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 122-75,122-75 |
| Citation | 133 Vt. 338,341 A.2d 22 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Michael CHURCHILL. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Michael Sheehan, Windsor County State's Atty., White River Junction, for plaintiff.
N. Lawrence Niles, of Niles, Johnson & Gibbs, Woodstock (Assigned), for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, KEYSER, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.
Defendant Michael Churchill was brought before the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 6, Windsor Circuit, on March 24, 1975, for a pre-arraignment hearing pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 5 to answer charges of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit aggravated assault and larceny in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1203, and charges of attempting to commit serious bodily injury in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1024(a). At the hearing, six conditions of release were imposed on the defendant by the court, one of which was a requirement that he report three designated days a week to his probation officer.
On May 2, 1975, defendant appeared in district court again for another pre-arraignment hearing to answer three more informations involving two counts of breaking and entering, one count of grand larceny and one of petty larceny, and two counts of malicious destruction of property all arising out of defendant's alleged activities on April 27, 1975. The court took note of defendant's prior record, his probation, and the current charges, and found defendant to be a danger to the public and ordered him to the correctional center without bail.
On May 5, 1975, an arrest warrant was issued against defendant for violation of his March 24 conditions of release, and a hearing was set for May 9 on this matter. Counsel for defendant had meanwhile filed a motion to review the May 2 denial of bail and, on May 6, a hearing thereon was held which resulted in continuance of defendant's detention detention pending preparation of written findings.
On May 9, a hearing was held to consider the violations of conditions of release imposed on March 24. According to a police officer's affidavit, defendant had contacted his brother and another person while on probation and was absent from his house in the nighttime, both express violations of his release conditions. Also, defendant had failed to report thrice weekly as required to his probation officer. As to the latter, defendant's probation officer testified that there were definite occasions, including a period of two weeks in a row, when defendant failed to report on the required days. The court found defendant in violation of his conditions of release and further decided there were no release conditions that could be imposed to adequately protect the public. Consequently, the court ordered that defendant 'shall not be bailable by sufficient sureties or cash in lieu thereof and not be released on conditions set forth in Title 13 § 7554.' Also on May 9, defendant was the subject of yet another pre-arraignment hearing, this time involving two counts of grand larceny arising out of incidents on December 26, 1974, in White River Junction, Vermont.
Defendant contends that the actions of the court on May 2, ordering him to the correctional center without bail, and the results of the May 9 hearing ordering him to be held without bail, are in violation of his right to bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7554 and under chapter II, § 32 of the Vermont Constitution. But this line of reasoning overlooks the fact that bail and conditions of release were granted to defendant on March 24, pending hearing of the first set of charges against him. When defendant subsequently breached his conditions of release, a conclusion amply supported by the record, he forfeited bail and was properly returned to custody. See People v. Montgomery, 135 Cal.App.2d 507, 287 P.2d 520 (1955); 8 C.J.S. Bail § 36(13...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mello v. Superior Court
...our attention. Before proceeding further, I feel it necessary to explain why I do not find these cases persuasive. In State v. Churchill, 133 Vt. 338, 341 A.2d 22 (1975), the Vermont Supreme Court apparently felt that the revocation of bail for breach of a condition of release did not give ......
-
State v. Pray
...elements of the statute relating to specific factual situations. State v. Lapham, 133 Vt. 431, 340 A.2d 81 (1975); State v. Churchill, 133 Vt. 338, 341 A.2d 22 (1975); State v. McGinnis, 133 Vt. 20, 328 A.2d 400 (1974); State v. Roessell, 132 Vt. 634, 328 A.2d 118 (1974); State v. Gregory, ......
-
Bergeron v. Boyle, 2003 VT 89 (Vt. 10/24/2003)
... ... An action before a superior court shall be brought in the county in which one of the parties resides, if either resides in the state; otherwise, on motion, the complaint shall be dismissed. If neither party resides in the state, the action may be brought in any county. Actions ... ...
-
State v. Cardinal
...altogether, if the court determines that no conditions of release will assure the defendant's appearance at trial, State v. Churchill, 133 Vt. 338, 340, 341 A.2d 22, 23 (1975), or that the defendant's breach of bail conditions constitute a threat to "the integrity of the judicial process." ......