State v. Myron Bullock, 165 A.3d 143

Defendant Myron Bullock charged with human trafficking, aggravated sexual assault (serious bodily injury), and kidnapping with intent to sexually assault; each count carries potential life sentence.
State sought to hold defendant without bail under Vermont Constitution ch. II, § 40(1) and 13 V.S.A. § 7553 (evidence of guilt is great).
At the § 7553 hearing the State offered an audio recording of the alleged victim giving a sworn oral statement to state troopers; an oath was administered at the start.
Defense objected, arguing the sworn statement would be inadmissible at trial and therefore should not be used at the § 7553 hearing; trial court admitted it for the hearing and held defendant without bail on two counts.
Trial court concluded no conditions could reasonably ensure safety or appearance; defendant appealed, arguing § 7553 hearings require only evidence admissible at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence inadmissible at trial may be considered at a § 7553 (no-bail) hearing	State: need only show it has substantial, admissible evidence to present at trial; may rely on sworn out-of-court statement to show it possesses admissible evidence	Bullock: evidence that would be inadmissible at trial should be excluded from § 7553 hearing; otherwise State must present admissible trial-ready proof	Court: State need not formally admit at the hearing all evidence that will be admissible at trial; it must show it has substantial admissible evidence it can present at trial, and the sworn statement sufficed to meet that burden
Proper standard for § 7553 showing	State: follows the Duff/Rule 12(d) framework—show substantial, admissible evidence exists that can convince a factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt	Bullock: § 7553 should require proof sufficient to defeat a Rule 12(d) motion at the hearing (i.e., only admissible evidence presented then)	Court: Adopts Duff distinction — State must demonstrate existence of substantial, admissible evidence (not necessarily admitted at the hearing) and that such evidence could fairly convince a juror beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 563 A.2d 258 (Vt. 1989) (adopted Rule 12(d) framework for § 7553; requires showing substantial, admissible evidence exists and could convince a factfinder)
State v. Hardy, 184 Vt. 618, 965 A.2d 478 (Vt. 2008) (court reviews de novo the evidence relied on by trial court in no-bail determinations)