192 A.3d 1270
Vt.2018Background
- Joshua Boyer was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting his 14-year-old daughter and charged with multiple aggravated sexual-assault counts and an aggravated-assault count potentially subject to the violent-career-criminal enhancement.
- After an initial bail hearing the court detained Boyer under 13 V.S.A. § 7553(a); Boyer then moved for pretrial release into the county home-detention program under 13 V.S.A. § 7554b to live at his mother‑in‑law’s residence.
- At the first hearing the court sought more information about the proposed residence and the Department of Corrections’ (DOC) electronic-monitoring protocols before making the specific § 7554b findings required.
- At a second hearing DOC personnel testified that the residence met program requirements (no firearms or alcohol, working equipment, neighbors located 50–100 feet away) and explained monitoring response protocols.
- The trial court expressly endorsed the local home-detention program but, applying the three factors of 13 V.S.A. § 7554b(b), denied release based on (1) the serious nature of the charged offenses, (2) Boyer’s history of violent convictions and supervision violations, and (3) concerns about risk to third parties/public safety.
- Boyer appealed, arguing the court improperly relied on criticisms of the DOC program rather than factors specific to him; the Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying home detention under § 7554b | State: Court properly denied release after weighing § 7554b factors and public‑safety concerns | Boyer: Denial improperly relied in part on the administration/quality of the home‑detention program rather than defendant‑specific factors | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court solicited program info but grounded decision in defendant‑specific § 7554b analysis |
| Whether a court may consider general criticisms of the home‑detention program when ruling | State: Program information permissible to ensure safety and suitability of placement | Boyer: Such program criticism is impermissible second‑guessing per Whiteway I | Court said Whiteway I prohibits systematic criticism; here court did not base denial on administration flaws but on statutory factors specific to Boyer, so decision stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whiteway, 196 Vt. 638 (2014) (mem.) (review of bail decision limited to abuse of discretion)
- State v. Whiteway, 196 Vt. 629 (2014) (mem.) (trial court may not deny home detention based on generalized criticism of program administration)
- State v. Pelletier, 197 Vt. 644 (2014) (mem.) (defendant bears burden to prove home detention appropriate and court must base decision on § 7554b(b) factors)
- State v. Shores, 179 A.3d 196 (Vt. 2017) (mem.) (affirming standard of review and reiterating requirement that denial be rooted in defendant‑specific factors)