State v. Peggy L. Shores, 168 A.3d 471

Defendant Peggy Shores was charged with second-degree murder after her husband died from a single gunshot at their home; she claimed an accidental self-inflicted discharge while he climbed stairs with a pistol.
Medical examiner found a distant-entry wound with a downward trajectory and no evidence of a fall; forensic testing found no gunshot residue on the shirt and concluded the gun would leave residue if fired within 48 inches.
Trajectory reconstruction indicated the shot likely was fired from the top of the stairs; the State argued this was inconsistent with a self-inflicted wound given the decedent’s arm and gun lengths.
At a weight-of-evidence hearing under 13 V.S.A. § 7553, the trial court found the State’s physical and forensic evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, established that the evidence of guilt was great.
The court then considered § 7554 factors and testimony from proposed custodians (mother‑in‑law, brother). The court found the custodians unsuitable due to criminal histories and supervision concerns and denied bail.
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) flaws in the State’s evidence meant the State failed to show the evidence of guilt was great, (2) the § 7554 findings did not support denial of bail, and (3) the court failed to consider whether conditions of release could mitigate risks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State met the § 7553 standard that the evidence of guilt is great	State: Forensic, medical, and trajectory evidence, taken favorably to the State, can reasonably convince a fact‑finder beyond a reasonable doubt	Shores: State evidence had significant flaws and inconsistencies; the court should not disregard those	Court: Affirmed — substantial admissible evidence, viewed in State’s favor, supported finding that evidence of guilt was great
Whether the trial court abused discretion under § 7554 in denying bail	State: Presumption of incarceration arises; court may deny bail if factors (custodians, danger, flight risk) support it	Shores: § 7554 findings do not show flight or danger risk; court gave no reasoned account and ignored possible conditions	Court: No abuse of discretion — court considered § 7554 factors, found proposed custodians unsuitable, and reasonably concluded denial served interests of preventing flight and protecting public
Whether court failed to consider whether conditions of release could mitigate risks	State: Court provided Shore opportunity to propose and present custodians and conditions; unsuitability justified denial	Shores: Court did not analyze whether tailored conditions would suffice instead of detention	Court: No error — court evaluated proposed conditions/custodians, directly observed witnesses, and reasonably determined conditions would not adequately mitigate risks

State v. Brillon, 188 Vt. 537 (2010) (standard for reviewing whether “evidence of guilt is great” at bail hearing)
State v. Pellerin, 187 Vt. 482 (2010) (trial court’s broad discretion to deny bail when public safety or flight risk exists)
State v. Breer, 198 Vt. 629 (2014) (trial court should not adjudicate guilt at bail hearing; need only determine sufficiency to sustain a guilty verdict)
State v. Blackmer, 160 Vt. 451 (1993) (life‑imprisonment exposure can serve as proxy for flight risk/public‑safety concerns)
State v. Avgoustov, 180 Vt. 595 (2006) (review of court’s discretionary bail decisions for support in record)