State v. Roessell

• Decision Date: 07 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 208-74,208-74
• Citation: State v. Roessell, 328 A.2d 118, 132 Vt. 634 (Vt. 1974)
• Parties: STATE of Vermont v. Godfrey ROESSELL.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 118

328 A.2d 118

132 Vt. 634

STATE of Vermont v. Godfrey ROESSELL.

No. 208-74.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Nov. 7, 1974.

Michael J. Sheehan, State's Atty., for the State.

Donald A. Graham, Public Defender, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, KEYSER, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The matter at issue relates to bail. This is an appeal under 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b), from conditions of release imposed below. It was originally heard before a single justice who, having determined that the terms of 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b) and V. R.A.P. 27(c) did not authorize hearing such an appeal before a justice sitting alone, ordered the matter before the full Court for decision.

Due to the required expedited nature of hearings relating to bail, the record is frequently in disorder and abounding in shortages. However, if the statute 13 V.S.A. §§ 7551-7573 is to fulfill its purpose, and this Court is to carry out its appellate function, it is necessary that the hearing and the reviewing judge record the factual findings upon which their actions are founded. Since several reviews are possible, each succeeding judge will find his task simplified if his predecessor has found the facts and stated his conclusions of law.

Such findings as appear of record in this case are found in a letter from the judge below to counsel for the defendant explaining that, since there was no presentation of further evidence at the second hearing before him under 13 V.S.A. § 7554(d), he did not feel compelled to make written findings relating to conditions of release. It seems clear that, as the lower court acknowledged, the ingredients were present at the first hearing upon which findings could have been made. Such information in before us as part of the record, but is not in the form of written findings. It would have been better if such knowledge available at the first hearing had been reduced to writing in order to implement and facilitate later review either by a district judge or this Court.

An examination of the record now before the Court discloses some obvious difficulties. First, the lower court undertook to require cash bail. We have recently held and still hold that the option of 'a bail bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or the deposit of cash in lieu thereof', 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a) (4), is an option belonging to the defendant, and the court setting bail may not make that choice except as with regard to the sufficiency of the sureties. State v. Webb, 132 Vt. ---, 320 A.2d 626, 629 (1974); State v. Woodmansee, 131 Vt. 22, 23-24, 298 A.2d 814 (1972).

Moreover, another problem with the disposition below appears from the record. The original determination of the judge and his amended order both set money bail in the presence of a determination that the...