State v. Jason Blow, 251 A.3d 517

Defendant Jason Blow was charged with aggravated sexual assault (serious bodily injury/strangulation) and second-degree unlawful restraint for allegedly locking a 17-year-old complainant in his car and raping her on June 4, 2020.
Police observed bruising on the complainant the next day; photos and vehicle inspection showed tape on a passenger window and a dashboard mechanism that can prevent door opening.
On June 19 officers attempted to arrest Blow; he fled in a high-speed pursuit, abandoned his vehicle, and was tracked on foot by a police canine.
The State sought pretrial detention under 13 V.S.A. § 7553 (offenses punishable by life and where evidence of guilt is great); the superior court held a weight-of-the-evidence hearing and ordered Blow held without bail.
After the hearing Blow received discovery he argued was new: (1) texts and a store-employee statement suggesting a tighter time window that, he claimed, made the alleged sequence of events impossible; and (2) medical records and recorded statements that he said undermined the complainant’s credibility.
The superior court denied reconsideration, excluding the new time/evidentiary materials from the § 7553 analysis as modifying evidence, and again denied bail after weighing § 7554(b) factors. Blow appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blow)	Held
Whether newly disclosed time-location and other materials are "modifying evidence" excluded from the § 7553 (hold-without-bail) analysis	The new materials raise credibility issues and are therefore excluded from the § 7553 analysis; substantial admissible evidence still shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	The new evidence (texts, store witness, medical notes, interview) makes complainant’s account impossible or highly implausible, so the evidence of guilt is no longer "great" under § 7553	Court held the new evidence is modifying/excluded; taking State evidence favorably, the evidence of guilt is great and detention under § 7553 is justified
Whether the superior court abused its discretion in denying bail under § 7554(b) given the newly disclosed evidence	The court properly considered relevant § 7554(b) factors (seriousness, criminal history, flight risk) and need not consider every factor or give controlling weight to weakened State evidence	The new evidence undermines the State’s case and reduces risk of flight, so the court should have granted bail or considered the weakened case more favorably	Court found no abuse of discretion: it considered multiple § 7554(b) factors and reasonably declined to set bail given violent charges, prior convictions, flight from police, and potential life sentence

State v. Ford, 130 A.3d 862 (Vt. 2015) (defines § 7553 standard; evidence of guilt is great when substantial admissible evidence, viewed favorably to State and excluding modifying evidence, can fairly and reasonably show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Breer, 160 A.3d 318 (Vt. 2016) (explains excluding modifying evidence from § 7553 to avoid credibility determinations at bail stage)
State v. Stolte, 44 A.3d 166 (Vt. 2012) (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial evidence and when nontestimonial evidence may nonetheless be modifying)
State v. Turnbaugh, 811 A.2d 662 (Vt. 2002) (bail hearings must not adjudicate merits or resolve credibility conflicts)
State v. Auclair, 229 A.3d 1019 (Vt. 2020) (presumption against release arises if § 7553 met; court then exercises discretion under § 7554)
State v. Duff, 563 A.2d 258 (Vt. 1989) (State may meet § 7553 burden with affidavits, depositions, sworn testimony)
State v. Sawyer, 187 A.3d 377 (Vt. 2018) (appellate review of whether § 7553 standard is met is de novo)
State v. Orost, 179 A.3d 763 (Vt. 2017) (review of discretionary bail decisions is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Henault, 167 A.3d 892 (Vt. 2017) (trial court is not required to consider every § 7554(b) factor when exercising discretion)
State v. Scales, 164 A.3d 652 (Vt. 2017) (discusses evidence of flight and related inferences)