State v. Patricia Kane, 160 A.3d 1020

Patricia Kane pleaded guilty to custodial interference (a nonviolent felony) and was sentenced to 2–5 years, all suspended except one year, with probation.
In August 2016 Kane’s probation officer filed a violation complaint alleging failures to meet with the officer, report an address change, comply with curfew, and properly use electronic monitoring; affidavit also noted concerning statements suggesting self-harm and a remark about a separate homicide suspect.
At arraignment the State sought to hold Kane without bail pending a revocation hearing, citing flight risk and danger to self/community; the trial court ordered Kane held without bail.
A single-Justice of this Court initially affirmed, citing precedent that probationers generally have no right to bail pending revocation.
Kane sought full-Court review based on a 2010 statutory amendment (28 V.S.A. § 301(4)) that creates an exception: probationers convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors/nonviolent felonies whose alleged violations do not constitute a new crime fall within an “unless” clause.
The Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to confer a statutory right to bail/release for persons who meet the statutory criteria and reversed the trial court, directing a prompt release-condition hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2010 amendment eliminated any right to bail for probationers pending a revocation hearing	State: Court retains discretion to hold probationers without bail; prior authority allows detention pending revocation	Kane: 2010 amendment creates an exception that gives a right to bail for nonviolent misdemeanor/nonviolent felony probationers whose violations are not new crimes	Held: The amendment’s plain language and intent grant a statutory right to bail for those who fit the exception; such probationers may not be held without bail; conditions of release to be set under 13 V.S.A. § 7554.

State v. Campbell, 110 A.3d 289 (Vt. 2014) (addressed bail/discretion for probationers pending revocation)
State v. Stell, 937 A.2d 649 (Vt. 2007) (statutory interpretation principle: implement legislature’s intent using plain language)