State v. David Downing
2020 VT 97
| Vt. | 2020Background
- Defendant David Downing was arraigned on multiple charges including aggravated assault and initially detained without bail pending a § 7553a weight-of-the-evidence hearing.
- Facts alleged: on July 20 defendant kicked in ex-husband's door, assaulted him in the kitchen (15–20 punches to the head over ~1 minute), lifted and slammed him so his head struck a metal dog dish; ex-husband was transported to the hospital.
- Defendant returned later, battered the door, forced entry toward a bedroom where grandmother and children hid, and threatened to "find" and kill the ex-husband; he also told a responding officer he had a rifle and would kill the officer.
- New York officers later confronted defendant at his residence; he refused orders, carried a small knife, and was arrested after a prolonged standoff.
- After a full weight-of-the-evidence hearing the trial court found the State's evidence "great," found by clear and convincing evidence that release posed a substantial risk of physical violence and that conditions would not prevent it, and ordered defendant held without bail; defendant appealed under 13 V.S.A. § 7556(d) for de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Downing's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the weight of the evidence is "great" as to aggravated assault | State: evidence (assault pattern, multiple blows to head, slamming, threats) is sufficient under the Rule 12(d)/Duff standard | Downing: evidence supports simple assault at most; no direct proof of force or serious injury | Held: Weight of the evidence is great; a jury could find attempt to cause substantial impairment beyond a reasonable doubt (affirmed) |
| Whether defendant may be held without bail when a jury trial is unlikely to commence within 60 days due to COVID-related delays | State: § 40 and § 7553a permit preventive detention where statutory/constitutional findings met; the sixty-day rule limits duration but is not a condition precedent | Downing: if trial cannot realistically start within 60 days, preventive detention cannot lawfully be applied from the outset | Held: Detention may still be ordered; the 60-day rule limits duration (requiring a bail hearing/set bail if trial not begun) but does not bar an initial preventive-detention order |
| When the sixty-day period runs for a person held without bail under § 7553a/§ 7553b | State: operative date is the court's post–weight-of-the-evidence decision ordering hold without bail | Downing: sixty days should run from the initial denial of bail (arraignment) so pre-hearing detention counts toward the 60 days | Held: Court affirms the trial-court framework—sixty-day limit is tied to the operative hold-without-bail order (court affirms trial-court approach) |
| Precedential effect of a prior single-Justice § 7556(d) decision (Lontine) | State: Lontine supports counting from post-hearing order; that single-Justice decision is persuasive/controlling within this review scheme | Downing: challenges reliance on single-Justice precedent to resolve the start-date issue | Held: The Court treats prior single-Justice § 7556(d) decisions as binding in this context (stability/predictability) and directs that any change must come from a multi-Justice panel; outcome affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433 (Rule 12(d) standard governs "weight of the evidence" inquiry for preventive detention)
- State v. Cole, 150 Vt. 453 (intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Lontine, 201 Vt. 637 (single-Justice § 7556(d) decision addressing start of the sixty-day period)
- State v. Madison, 163 Vt. 360 (describing voter intent behind § 40 preventive-detention amendment)
- State v. Sauve, 159 Vt. 566 (recognizing pretrial detention undermines presumption of innocence)
- State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377 (court may hold defendant without bail pending full evidentiary bail hearing)