State v. Daniel Blodgett, 257 A.3d 232

Background

Defendant Daniel Blodgett was charged with sexual assault (13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(1)); the offense carries a potential life sentence. The trial court ordered him held without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553, finding the evidence of guilt great.
The alleged victim, A.Q., testified that an initially consensual sexual encounter became violent after Blodgett drank alcohol: she withdrew consent, he digitally penetrated her, attempted forceful anal intercourse, burned her groin with a cigarette, threw a beer can at her, and dragged her by the hair while their child screamed.
Blodgett was on probation for a prior prohibited-conduct conviction arising from sexual contact with a child; as a probation condition he was to undergo a psychosexual evaluation but did not complete treatment due to a missed/ canceled appointment.
Probation had imposed GPS monitoring after a probation-violation charge; the GPS is monitored only during work hours and can be disabled with wire cutters; Blodgett briefly failed to charge the unit once.
The trial court, after a weight-of-the-evidence hearing, found A.Q.’s testimony sufficient and relied on Blodgett’s prior sex-related conviction, the violent facts, perceived lack of impulse control, and concern about compliance with conditions to deny discretionary release.
Blodgett appealed, arguing (1) the evidence was not "great," (2) the court failed to properly consider statutory factors for release (13 V.S.A. § 7554(b)), and (3) pretrial detention during COVID-19 delays violated speedy-trial guarantees and Administrative Order 5 timelines.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "evidence of guilt is great" to permit pretrial detention under § 7553	State: A.Q.’s testimony (withdrawn consent, forced acts, digital penetration/attempted anal intrusion, burning, dragging) is substantial and admissible.	Blodgett: Encounter began consensually; only attempted, not completed anal intercourse; insufficient proof of intent.	Court: Evidence of guilt was great when viewed for the State; testimony supported intent and required intrusion/sexual-act elements.
Whether trial court abused discretion by not considering § 7554(b) factors before denying discretionary release	State: Court properly considered relevant factors (prior sex conviction, violent facts, impulse control, risk of flight, limited compliance history) in exercising discretion.	Blodgett: Court failed to meaningfully consider the statutory § 7554(b) factors and analogous cases (Passino, Memoli).	Court: No abuse of discretion—trial court considered the factors and gave adequate reasons; explicit recitation of every factor not required under § 7553.
Whether continued pretrial detention violates speedy-trial rights or A.O. 5 timelines (COVID-19 delays)	State: COVID-19 is an exceptional circumstance; A.O. 5 is internal guidance and does not confer independent rights to dismiss before six months.	Blodgett: Cannot be brought to trial within 90 days per A.O. 5; detention abridges Articles 10, 12 and Sixth Amendment rights.	Court: A.O. 5 does not create enforceable constitutional rights; COVID-19 constitutes exceptional circumstances; speedy-trial claim and dismissal remedy are not properly raised in a bail appeal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hardy, 965 A.2d 478 (Vt. 2008) (standard for assessing whether evidence of guilt is great)
State v. Duff, 563 A.2d 258 (Vt. 1989) (evidence-of-guilt review described)
State v. Orost, 179 A.3d 763 (Vt. 2017) (appellate independent review of evidence-of-guilt determination)
State v. Cole, 554 A.2d 253 (Vt. 1988) (intent may be inferred from conduct)
State v. Blackmer, 631 A.2d 1134 (Vt. 1993) (no constitutional right to bail where evidence of guilt is great)
State v. Falzo, 969 A.2d 694 (Vt. 2009) (trial court retains broad discretion to grant bail under § 7553)
State v. Memoli, 956 A.2d 575 (Vt. 2008) (court must still consider evidence relevant to discretionary release even if evidence of guilt is great)
State v. Passino, 577 A.2d 281 (Vt. 1990) (remand where no indication court exercised discretion to consider bail)
State v. Reynolds, 95 A.3d 973 (Vt. 2014) (A.O. 5 is internal guidance and does not create independent defendant rights)
State v. Snide, 479 A.2d 139 (Vt. 1984) (A.O. 5 does not require dismissal even if timeframes exceeded)
State v. Labrecque, 249 A.3d 671 (Vt. 2020) (COVID-19 pandemic can justify trial delays as exceptional circumstances)