State v. Aaron Lontine, 142 A.3d 1058

Aaron Lontine was arraigned Nov. 17, 2015 on multiple charges including three counts of first-degree aggravated domestic assault and other domestic-violence related felonies and misdemeanors arising from Nov. 13–15, 2015.
At arraignment the State obtained a temporary hold-without-bail pending a weight-of-the-evidence hearing; a full denial of bail after an evidentiary hearing was entered Jan. 14, 2016.
Lontine requested release under 13 V.S.A. § 7553b (trial must commence within 60 days of bail denial), arguing the 60‑day clock began at arraignment; the court conducted a de novo single‑Justice appeal.
The court held evidentiary hearings (Feb. 2 and 9, 2016) and found a pattern of escalating domestic violence, including choking, use/brandishing of a firearm, threats, and prior incidents; victim M.K. testified to multiple assaults.
The court concluded the State met the weight-of-evidence threshold but reversed the hold-without-bail order under 13 V.S.A. § 7553a because the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably prevent future violence.
The court denied immediate release under § 7553b, finding the operative 60‑day period begins with the post‑evidentiary hearing bail decision and that Lontine had not asserted a speedy‑trial objection that would make delay attributable to the State.

Issue	State's Argument	Lontine's Argument	Held
Whether § 7553b required immediate setting of bail because trial did not commence within 60 days of arraignment	§ 7553b applies only after bail is denied following the § 7553a evidentiary process; delay attributable to defense can toll period	60‑day clock began at arraignment when he was first held without bail; thus court must immediately set bail	Denied — 60‑day clock runs from the post‑evidentiary denial of bail; Lontine also did not assert speedy‑trial rights and stipulated to scheduling that made delay attributable to defense
Whether the State proved under § 7553a by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Lontine posed substantial threat of physical violence and (2) no conditions of release would reasonably prevent that violence	State: facts of the charged incidents, history of choking, firearm use/brandishing, escalating jealousy and threats show substantial threat and risk of noncompliance with conditions	Lontine: disputed some facts, argued past conduct was limited, no serious criminal record, and he would comply with conditions/treatment	Split holding — (1) State proved substantial threat to victim; (2) State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions would reasonably prevent violence. Hold-without-bail vacated; release on stringent conditions ordered

State v. Bickel, 166 Vt. 633 (Vt. 1997) (court may hold defendant without bail pending a § 7553a hearing)
State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377 (Vt. 1990) (court can hold defendant without bail pending a full bail hearing)
State v. Parda, 142 Vt. 261 (Vt. 1982) (cash bail cannot be used as preventive detention; must relate to flight risk)
State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433 (Vt. 1989) (limits on imposing high cash bail without evidentiary support)
State v. Unwin, 139 Vt. 186 (Vt. 1980) (Barker four‑factor speedy trial analysis and defendant’s obligation to assert the right)
In re N.H., 168 Vt. 508 (Vt. 1998) (clarifying clear-and-convincing standard)
State v. Blackmer, 160 Vt. 451 (Vt. 1993) (preconviction detention cannot be used as punishment; presumption of innocence)