State v. Michael Rondeau, 167 A.3d 332

In March 2011 Rondeau was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault for repeated sexual abuse of his daughter over many years; he was convicted in May 2013. The Vermont Supreme Court vacated those convictions in 2016 for ex post facto and notice defects.
The State refiled two aggravated-sexual-assault counts under the statute as it existed at the time of the alleged offenses on December 19, 2016; arraignment occurred December 23, 2016.
At arraignment the State moved to hold Rondeau without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553 (crimes punishable by life when evidence of guilt is great).
At a January 6, 2017 weight-of-the-evidence hearing the State submitted the transcript of the first trial; the court found the evidence of guilt great and that no conditions of release would assure appearance and protect the victim, and ordered Rondeau held without bail.
Rondeau appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to find each statutory element (specifically repeated nonconsensual acts) and (2) the court did not properly consider the § 7554(b) conditions-of-release factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rondeau)	Held
Whether the court properly found "evidence of guilt is great" under § 7553	The trial testimony from the first trial (admitted at hearing) showed repeated nonconsensual sexual acts by Rondeau and otherwise satisfied the statute’s elements	The court failed to expressly find that every statutory element was met, particularly the "repeated nonconsensual sexual acts" element	Held: Court properly assessed all elements, relying on the complainant’s trial testimony that the abuse began at age 4 and continued repeatedly through age 17
Whether a presumption favoring incarceration under § 7553 is improper and whether the court abused discretion by not considering § 7554(b) factors	The presumption of incarceration applies when the State shows facts legally sufficient for a guilty verdict; even then the court may consider § 7554(b) factors and has broad discretion	The presumption should not apply; the court failed to analyze each § 7554(b) factor and justify different bail treatment than at the first trial	Held: Presumption in favor of incarceration is consistent with the Vermont Constitution and § 7553; court considered § 7554(b) factors and did not abuse its discretion

State v. Duff, 563 A.2d 258 (Vt. 1989) (trial court must specifically find facts legally sufficient to sustain guilty verdict before denying bail under § 7553)
State v. Avgoustov, 907 A.2d 1185 (Vt. 2006) (mem.) (when substantial admissible evidence taken most favorably to the State shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a presumption in favor of incarceration arises)
State v. Ford, 130 A.3d 862 (Vt. 2015) (mem.) (even if evidence of guilt is great and a presumption for incarceration exists, the court may still release on bail; discretion must not be arbitrary)
State v. Memoli, 956 A.2d 575 (Vt. 2008) (mem.) (appellate review of bail decisions for abuse of discretion)
State v. Blow, 135 A.3d 672 (Vt. 2015) (presumption of incarceration applies where constitutional right to bail is displaced)
State v. Blackmer, 631 A.2d 1134 (Vt. 1993) (summarizing cases that where constitutional right to bail does not apply, the norm becomes incarceration rather than release)