State v. James Rivera-Martinez, 2021 VT 96

Background

Defendant (James Rivera-Martinez) was charged with sexual assault without consent and lewd and lascivious conduct; the State later added attempted sexual assault without consent; the sexual-assault counts are punishable by life imprisonment.
Incident facts: defendant spent the night at the complainant’s home (they are recently divorced and co-parenting); complainant awoke to defendant with his hand inside her underwear and his finger on her genitals, told him to stop, and pulled his hand away.
Complainant reported no consent and that they had not been sexually active for over a year; text messages the next day corroborated aspects of her account.
At the weight-of-the-evidence hearing the State relied on complainant’s statements and the corroborating texts; the State also presented defendant’s recent probation and protective-order violations involving the complainant to argue danger.
Defendant argued (1) the finger did not penetrate and thus did not satisfy the statutory “sexual act,” (2) complainant’s movements (“grinding”) indicated he reasonably believed she consented, and (3) the court abused its discretion by holding him without bail without properly applying § 7554(b) factors.
The trial court found the evidence of guilt great as to attempted sexual assault without consent, concluded defendant posed an unacceptable danger to the complainant, and ordered him held without bail; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State presented substantial, admissible evidence such that the evidence of guilt is "great" for attempted sexual assault without consent under 13 V.S.A. § 7553	Complainant's post‑incident statements and texts corroborate that defendant put his finger on/into her genitals without consent, satisfying the sexual‑act/attempt elements	Complainant's movements amounted to consent or at least a reasonable belief of consent; finger did not fully penetrate, so an essential element is lacking	Court: substantial, admissible evidence viewed in State's favor supports that the evidence of guilt is great as to attempted sexual assault without consent; affirmed
Whether the revised statutory definition of consent governs here (affirmative, unambiguous, voluntary agreement) or a reasonable‑person standard should apply	The new consent definition in 13 V.S.A. § 3251(3) controls charges under § 3252(a)(1)	Defendant urged applying the reasonable‑person standard drawn from the statute’s separate sleeping/unaware provision	Court: the revised, affirmative consent definition applies to § 3252(a)(1) prosecutions; reasonable‑person standard for § 3252(a)(4) is inapposite
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding defendant without bail by failing to analyze § 7554(b) factors and by misjudging danger to the complainant	State: seriousness of charges, weight of evidence, and defendant’s history of protective‑order violations justify detention	Defendant: court failed to expressly apply § 7554(b) factors and conditions could mitigate risk; no sufficient showing of danger	Court: no abuse of discretion—court considered § 7554 factors (family ties, prior violations, seriousness) sufficiently, articulated legitimate government interest in detention, and permissibly concluded release would pose an unacceptable danger

Key Cases Cited

State v. Shores, 168 A.3d 471 (presumption in favor of detention when charged with life‑penalty offense and evidence of guilt is great)
State v. Ford, 130 A.3d 862 (presumption arises if statutory requirements are met)
State v. Baker, 116 A.3d 1192 (trial court uses Rule 12(d) standard to assess whether evidence of guilt is great)
State v. Avgoustov, 907 A.2d 1185 (explaining substantial, admissible evidence standard taken in light most favorable to State)
State v. Collins, 177 A.3d 528 (trial court must articulate a legitimate government interest when detaining pretrial and may consider § 7554 factors)
State v. Blodgett, 257 A.3d 232 (no requirement to recite every § 7554(b) factor; consideration of factors is sufficient)
State v. Auclair, 229 A.3d 1019 (listing § 7554(b) factors is best practice)