State v. Evan P. Ford, 130 A.3d 862

On July 25, 2015, Evan P. Ford forced entry into a Bennington residence armed with a rifle; the rifle discharged through an outer door and later misfired inside when the magazine fell out.
Ford threatened to kill a man named Forrest King and threatened police; bystanders Vincent Tatro and Hallie Monroe were threatened and pushed Ford to the ground while escaping. Police found Ford with bullets in his pockets and a loaded magazine inside the residence.
Ford was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of kidnapping with intent to inflict bodily harm—each offense carrying a potential life sentence.
At a weight-of-evidence hearing the trial court found the evidence sufficient to invoke the presumption against release under 13 V.S.A. § 7553 and denied bail, also ruling home detention (§ 7554b) and sheriff electronic monitoring (§ 7554d) would not protect the public.
Ford appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court challenging (1) the trial court’s consideration of § 7554 factors when denying bail under § 7553 and (2) the court’s consideration of the specific § 7554b factors for home detention and electronic monitoring.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court’s denial of bail and refusal to order home detention or electronic monitoring.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553	State: court properly applied presumption against release where evidence of guilt was great	Ford: court failed to consider all § 7554 factors when exercising discretion to release	Court: no abuse — presumption applied, court considered relevant § 7554 factors and properly weighed them against dangerousness
Whether trial court erred in denying home detention under 13 V.S.A. § 7554b	State: court considered the three statutory factors and found public safety concerns outweighed release	Ford: court did not adequately apply or articulate § 7554b(b) factors as required	Court: no abuse — trial court addressed each § 7554b(b) factor, found nature of offense and risk to third parties outweighed factors favoring home detention
Whether electronic monitoring under § 7554d should have been ordered	State: § 7554d incorporates § 7554b criteria; same analysis supports denial	Ford: monitoring would mitigate risk and allow release	Court: no abuse — § 7554d uses § 7554b criteria and court permissibly found monitoring insufficient to protect public
Standard of review and burden of proof for home detention when § 7553 presumption applies	N/A	N/A (contextual legal question)	Court reiterated: abuse-of-discretion review; when § 7553 presumption applies defendant bears burden to show home detention will adequately protect public

State v. Avgoustov, 180 Vt. 595 (recognizes presumption against release when substantial admissible evidence shows guilt)
State v. Falzo, 189 Vt. 616 (trial court may still release defendant on bail even if presumption of incarceration exists)
State v. Pellerin, 187 Vt. 482 (abuse-of-discretion standard for bail review)
State v. Barrows, 172 Vt. 596 (abuse-of-discretion standard applied in bail context)
State v. Whiteway (Whiteway I), 196 Vt. 629 (limits on trial court discretion under § 7554b; defendant bears burden to justify home detention)
State v. Whiteway (Whiteway II), 196 Vt. 638 (upholding denial of bail where court’s findings were specific to defendant)