State v. Joshua Waterman, 273 A.3d 634

Waterman was charged in 2018 and again in 2019 with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child (second offense), offenses carrying possible life sentences.
The trial court set monetary bail and release conditions on those charges, but Waterman remained jailed for years because he could not post bail on unrelated matters.
In 2021 the State sought a weight-of-the-evidence hearing under 13 V.S.A. § 7553 to hold Waterman without bail; the court held the first § 7553 hearing in November 2021.
The court found the evidence of guilt “great” as to the 2018 charge (relying on the complainant’s deposition), removed prior cash bail/conditions, and ordered Waterman held without bail, but made no findings addressing whether conditions of release could nevertheless be imposed.
Waterman appealed, arguing (1) the State should not have sought a § 7553 hold after he’d already been detained on unpaid bail and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider and articulate reasons for denying conditional release.
The Supreme Court of Vermont held the State could request a § 7553 hearing despite earlier bail determinations but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make required findings explaining its discretionary decision to deny bail/conditions.

Issue	State's Argument	Waterman's Argument	Held
Whether the State could seek a § 7553 hold after the court had previously set bail and Waterman had been jailed on unpaid bonds	The State may request a first-time § 7553 weight-of-the-evidence hearing at any time; no showing of a shift in evidence is required when no prior § 7553 hearing occurred	The motion was improper and retaliatory because Waterman had already been effectively detained by unpaid bail for years	Court: State may request a § 7553 hearing even years later if no prior weight-of-the-evidence hearing occurred; request not barred as retaliatory per se
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by holding Waterman without bail without making findings about imposing conditions of release	Conceded the court should be allowed to revisit and should make findings; requested remand if findings lacking	Argued evidence conceded great but court was required to consider and articulate reasons for denying conditional release	Court: Abuse of discretion — trial court failed to make the necessary findings or articulate legitimate government interest for continued detention; remand for findings and exercise of discretion

State v. Blow, 135 A.3d 672 (Vt. 2015) (allows State to renew § 7553 request when weight of evidence shifts)
State v. Morton, 184 A.3d 249 (Vt. 2018) (after-hours bail order is temporary; later § 7553 hearing can replace it without showing changed evidence)
State v. Avgoustov, 907 A.2d 1185 (Vt. 2006) (standard for when evidence of guilt is "great")
State v. Auclair, 229 A.3d 1019 (Vt. 2020) (court may look to § 7554(b) factors but need not address each explicitly)
State v. Morris, 967 A.2d 1139 (Vt. 2008) (court must make findings indicating how discretion was exercised)
State v. Collins, 177 A.3d 528 (Vt. 2017) (court must articulate legitimate government interest to justify detention)
State v. Passino, 577 A.2d 281 (Vt. 1990) (absence of reasoning can constitute abuse of discretion)
State v. Duff, 563 A.2d 258 (Vt. 1989) (no constitutional right to bail when statutory standard for detention is met)