mime-version: 1.0 content-location: file:///C:/6B12918C/eo05-144.bail.htm content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-144
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;  = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;
State of Vermont = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = <= /span>} = APPEALED FROM:
v. = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; } = District Court of Vermont,
Casey J. Langlois  = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;  = ; }
} = DOCKET NO. 1218-11-04 Wncr
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant Casey J. Langlois is charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault = in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3253. He appeals the district court’s order that he be held without bail. We affirm.
The maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault is life imprisonment, 13 V.= S.A. § 3253(b), and therefore defendant is not entitled to bail as a matter of right if the evidence of guilt is great, id. § 7553. In such ca= ses, if substantial, admissible evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, can fairly and reasonably show defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then a presumption arises in f= avor of incarceration. State v. Blackmer, 160 Vt. 451, 454, 458, 631 A.2d 11= 34, 1136, 1139 (1993). Th= e trial court must then exercise its discretion in determining whether or not to i= mpose bail and conditions of release. Id. at 458.&n= bsp; The court’s discretion is extremely broad, but its decision c= annot be arbitrary. Id.
At the hearing below, defendant conceded that the evidence of guilt is great,= but suggested that his parents could act as suitable custodians were he releas= ed on bail. The State presented ev= idence that the parents have known of defendant’s sexual assaults for almos= t two years, and have thus far been unable to protect the victim from further ab= use. The court recognized that the evid= ence of guilt is great, and applied the presumption in favor of incarceration. It then looked to the factors out= lined in 13 V.S.A. § 7554 to guide its discretionary determination on wheth= er to impose bail and conditions of release.&nb= sp; The court found that, given the evidence presented, the parents are= not suitable custodians, and it could not fashion conditions of release suffic= ient to protect the public. It th= erefore ordered defendant held without bail.
We affirm the district court’s order.&= nbsp; The evidence presented at the hearing below demonstrated that defendant’s parents may not be suitable custodians, and therefore the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering him held without bail. Defendant did not present alterna= tive custodians to the trial court, but if circumstances have changed, and defe= ndant believes he can present the court with more suitable conditions of release= , he is free to move the district court for a new bail hearing. Given the record before us in this appeal, however, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion by ordering defendant held without bail.
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; _______________________________________
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice