State v. Toomey
| Decision Date | 13 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 360,360 |
| Citation | 223 A.2d 473,126 Vt. 123 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. William TOOMEY. |
Patrick J. Leahy, State's Atty., Burlington, for plaintiff.
Corsones & Hansen, Rutland, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
The defendant Toomey, is now incarcerated in the state prison at Windsor, before trial, upon failure to procure bail set by the Chittenden County Court in the amount of $22,500.00. The question presented here is whether the lower court refused to exercise its discretion, or exercised it on untenable reasons in setting bail for the defendant.
The defendant, charged in an information filed by the State's Attorney of Chittenden County with conspiracy to commit robbery, kidnapping and with two counts of burglary was arraigned before the Chittenden County Court on September 16, 1965. He entered a plea of not guilty to all charges against him. The State's Attorney of Chittenden County recommended that bail be set in the amount of $22,500.00, and bail was set in the recommended amount by the Chittenden County Court. Upon the arguments of the defendant's assigned counsel that such bail was excessive, permission was granted by the lower court to appeal to this Court before trial, pursuant to the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 2386.
A prisoner charged with any offense, unless in execution, or for a capital offense when the proof is evident or presumption great, is bailable as a matter of law. In re Dexter, 93 Vt. 304, 314, 107 A. 134. This is a right provided by both the Constitution of the United States (U.S.Const. Eighth Amendment) and the Constitution of the State. (Ch. 11, Sec. 32)
Even where the offense charged is a capital one, and the proof of guilt is evident or presumption great, the prisoner may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction of the question; but in this connection it should be stated that the discretion to be exercised by a court of justice is not an arbitrary, but a sound, judicial discretion, controlled by certain and well defined and established rules. In re Dexter, supra, p. 315, 107 A. 134. Factors to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of bail are: (1) ability of the accused to give bail, (2) nature of the offense, (3) penalty for the offense charged, (4) character and reputation of the accused, (5) health of the accused, (6) character and strength of the evidence, (7) probability of the accused appearing at trial, (8) forfeiture of other bonds, and (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested. 8 Am.Jur.2d Bail and Recognizance § 71, p. 824.
In our consideration of a question of whether a trial court abused its discretion we are bound to indulge every presumption in favor of the ruling below, unless it appears that it withheld or abused its discretion. The recognized test in this state of abuse of discretion is whether the discretion of the trial court was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable, or to an extent clearly unreasonable. John v. Fernandez, 124 Vt. 346, 348-349, 205 A.2d 552; Grow v. Wolcott, 123 Vt. 490 194 A.2d 403; Stone v. Briggs, 112 Vt. 410, 26 A.2d 828.
With these principles in mind we turn to the record of the proceedings in the Chittenden County Court. The State's Attorney of Chittenden County requested the court to set bail in the amount of $22,500.00, which amount was protested by the attorney for the respondent as being grossly excessive and in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. The presiding judge then made the following statement.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arthur
...(1904); Ex parte Howell, 34 Okl.Cr.App. 126, 245 P. 66 (1926); Fountaine v. Mullen, 117 R.I. 262, 366 A.2d 1138 (1976); State v. Toomey, 126 Vt. 123, 223 A.2d 473 (1966).4 See generally, Commonwealth v. Baker, 343 Mass. 162, 177 N.E.2d 783 (1961); State v. Konigsberg, 33 N.J. 367, 164 A.2d ......
-
State v. Pray, s. 229-75
...cannot infringe upon this right by creating a restriction to detain prisoners dangerous to themselves or the public. State v. Toomey, 126 Vt. 123, 124, 223 A.2d 473 (1966); In re Dexter, 93 Vt. 304, 314, 107 A. 134 (1919). Thus, a reading of § 7554 that would allow denial of bail upon a fin......
-
State v. Girouard
...amount of bail set is one of judicial discretion, controlled, of course, by certain guidelines. 13 V.S.A. § 7553a; State v. Toomey, 126 Vt. 123, 124-125, 223 A.2d 473 (1966). To maintain error, the defendant must show an abuse or withholding of discretion by the court. State v. Morrill, 127......
-
State v. Welch
...that its "discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable, or to an extent clearly unreasonable." State v. Toomey, 126 Vt. 123, 125, 223 A.2d 473, 475 (1966). Here, however, the trial court expressly referenced each § 7554(b) factor, noting where the evidence was neutra......