273 A.3d 642
Vt.2022Background
- Defendant Larry Labrecque has been detained without bail since November 2018 on three felony sexual‑assault charges (each punishable by life) arising from alleged repeated sexual abuse of a minor.
- The trial court initially found the weight of the evidence great and repeatedly denied bail; Labrecque filed multiple motions and two prior appeals concerning pretrial detention.
- Labrecque proposed release on electronic monitoring (an Omnilink 500 GPS/cellular system) and residence with his partner near local schools; the partner testified she works long hours and that no minors currently live in the house.
- The trial court denied the November 2021 bail‑review motion (Labrecque did not appear at the status conference) concluding monitoring would mitigate flight risk but would not protect public safety or assure court appearance given device limitations and lack of evidence about law‑enforcement response times.
- The Vermont Supreme Court addressed (1) whether it had jurisdiction to review the November 19 decision, and (2) whether continued pretrial detention violated due process under the Briggs three‑factor framework (strength of evidence; government responsibility for delay; length of detention).
- The Court affirmed: it exercised jurisdiction (construing the later filing as reopening an earlier timely appeal) and held that, despite 38 months detained, the Briggs factors do not show a due process violation because the public‑safety risk is strong, the State was not primarily responsible for pandemic delays, and the monitoring proposal did not sufficiently mitigate safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (LaBrecque) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying release on electronic monitoring | Monitoring would not adequately protect public safety or ensure appearance | Electronic monitoring would guarantee appearance and protect the public, so release under conditions is appropriate | No abuse of discretion; monitoring mitigates flight risk but not public‑safety risk, so denial affirmed |
| Whether continued pretrial detention violated Due Process under Briggs factors | Evidence of danger and flight risk is strong; much delay not caused by State; detention serves regulatory purposes | Lengthy (38‑month) detention + COVID delays + available monitoring render detention punitive/excessive | No due process violation; Briggs balance favors continued detention given strong safety concerns and non‑culpable pandemic delays |
| Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite timing confusion | (Implicit) appeal untimely if based only on later notice | Second notice should reopen earlier timely appeal because defendant lacked notice of entry | Court had jurisdiction; treated later filing as reopening the timely appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LaBrecque, 249 A.3d 671 (Vt. 2020) (mem.) (prior appeal applying Briggs factors and upholding detention)
- State v. LaBrecque, 261 A.3d 632 (Vt. 2021) (mem.) (reversed and remanded where court failed to hold evidentiary hearing on electronic‑monitoring proposal)
- United States v. Briggs, 697 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (establishing three‑factor due process framework for prolonged pretrial detention)
- State v. Boyer, 252 A.3d 804 (Vt. 2021) (mem.) (affirming denial of pretrial release when proposed conditions did not adequately assure public safety)
- State v. Auclair, 229 A.3d 1019 (Vt. 2020) (mem.) (discussing defendant’s burden to overcome presumption of incarceration)
- State v. Falzo, 969 A.2d 694 (Vt. 2009) (mem.) (trial judge has discretion to grant bail even when statute presumes incarceration)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (pretrial detention is a carefully limited exception to the norm of liberty)
- United States v. El‑Hage, 213 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2000) (extraordinarily long pretrial detention may nonetheless pass due process review depending on factors)