State v. Hutchins, 255-75
| Decision Date | 17 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 255-75,255-75 |
| Citation | 365 A.2d 507,134 Vt. 441 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. John HUTCHINS. |
Gregory McNaughton, State's Atty., and Brian J. Grearson, Deputy State's Atty., Montpelier, for plaintiff.
Robert E. West, Defender Gen., and Robert M. Paolini, Deputy Defender Gen., Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ.
Defendant was arrested on January 7, 1974, for the sale of a regulated drug, marijuana, in violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4224. Bail was set in the amount of $500.00, and defendant's father posted cash. On September 17, 1974, defendant failed to appear for a jury drawing. As a result a bench warrant was issued on October 2, 1974, and bail was forfeited. On July 7, 1975, defendant voluntarily returned to court, and the court issued no further order concerning bail but ordered that defendant could be released on the condition that he not leave Barre City or Barre Town without the court's consent, and further that he report on each Monday and Friday to the probation department. On July 31, 1975, defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge. On August 7, 1975, defendant filed a motion for return of bail, 13 V.S.A. § 7570; he now appeals the denial of this motion.
13 V.S.A. § 7570 gives a trial court the discretion to remit a forfeiture of bail in whole or in part 'as the circumstances of the case require'.
The purpose of bail is to assure defendant's appearance in court as ordered. State v. Pray, 133 Vt. 537, 346 A.2d 277 (1975). Defendant readily admits that for a period of approximately nine months he violated the original conditions of release. However, defendant now claims that the forfeiture was negated by his return when the trial court released him on the same bail, plus additional conditions. The burden of establishing a justification for the remission of forfeiture of bail rests with defendant. United States v. Libichian, 113 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1940); Application of Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 60 N.W.2d 40 (1953). Defendant's claim on the evidence here is not supported by the record because upon defendant's reappearance no new or additional bail was ordered, although new conditions of release were imposed, the original bail having previously been forfeited. Defendant does not advance any other basis for remission of forfeiture of bail in the case at bar, and hence fails to sustain his burden of justification.
Even assuming that defendant sustained his burden of producing evidence and advanced some credible basis justifying a remission of forfeiture of bail, any decision under 13 V.S.A. § 7570 is wholly discretionary with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bonds
...its discretion entirely or that it was exercised for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly untenable extent. State v. Hutchins,134 Vt. 441, 443, 365 A.2d 507, 508 (1976). We must also examine the trial court's interpretation of Vermont's bail statutes and correlated case law. On such qu......
-
State v. Brown
...appear at a hearing where appearance was required. We review the court's decision for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Hutchins, 134 Vt. 441, 443, 365 A.2d 507, 508 (1976) (explaining that it is within the court's discretion to allow recovery of forfeited bail). "[T]he sole constitution......
-
Townsend v. Town of Middlebury, 218-75
... ... Hearing on the appeal was held before the State Appeals Board in Middlebury on March 18, 1975. There, appellee Townsend contended that the value ... ...
-
State v. Whidbee
... ... discernable findings or § 7554 analysis would be an ... abuse of discretion. See State v. Hutchins, 134 Vt ... 441, 443 (1976) (explaining that abuse of discretion is found ... where trial court fails to exercise discretion) ... ...